Being as I am a curmudgeon, and delight in human folly and thoughts of huge asteroids, tsunamis, incurable plagues, continent-shattering volcanoes, and the Hillary administration, I follow the advance of robots with hope. They may finally end civilization as we know it. Currently they spread like kudzu. Herewith a few notes from my favorite technical publication, the Drudge Report. It may convince you that the robots are upon us like ants on a sandwich.

People seldom click on links. This one, Atlas, from Boston Dynamics, is truly worth a click. Think of him coming through your door by night. Many similar critters exist, often in Asia.

These machines either work well or come very close, and impinge on manufacturing, delivery, war, policing, the restaurant industry, journalism, and service industries perhaps soon to include prostitution. We ought to think forethoughtedly about what to do with these machines. We won’t.

Amazon Robots. Credit: Fred Reed.

Video. These orange devils carry heavy racks to humans who pick ordered goods from them for shipment. Amazon is working on robots that can do the picking. Who will be left? In principle, 30,000 robots can work 90,000 shifts, plus weekends. With a predictability that makes sunrise look like a long shot, the company says that the robots do not replace but “help” humans. If you believe this, I’d like to sell you stock in my venture to make radioactive dog-food on Mars.

Automation of course means more than robots. As newspaper after newspaper goes all-digital, less pulpwood will be needed to make less newsprint, pressmen will be fired, delivery trucks will no longer needed, and so on. Such ripple effects get little attention. They should.

The capitalist paradigm in which companies think only about themselves, seeking to increase productivity and reduce costs, is going to work decreasingly well. Replacing well-paid workers with robots means replacing customers with a lot of money with customers with little money. People who are not paid much do not buy much. Robots buy even less.

The first crucial question of coming decades: Who is going to buy the stuff pouring from robotic factories?

ORDER IT NOW

The current notion is that when a yoyo factory automates and lays off most of its workers, they will find other well-paid jobs and continue to buy yoyos. But as well-paid jobs everywhere go automated, where will the money come from to buy yoyos? Today participation in the work force is at all- time lows and we have a large and growing number of young who, unable to find good jobs, live with their parents. They are not buying houses or renting apartments. (They may, given the intellectual level of today’s young, be buying yoyos.)

Enthusiasts of the free market say that I do not understand economics, that there will always be work for people who want to work. But there isn’t. There won’t be. There is less all the time. Again, look at the falling participation in the work force, the growing numbers in part-time badly paid jobs. Short of governmentally imposed minimums, wages are determined by the market, meaning that if a robot works for a dollar an hour, a human will have to work for ninety-five cents an hour to compete , or find a job a robot can’t do–and these get scarcer.

From a businessman’s point of view, robots are superb employees. They don’t strike, demand raises, call in sick, get disgruntled and do a sloppy job, or require benefits. Building factories that are robotic from the gitgo means not having to lay workers off, which is politically easier than firing existing workers. Using robots obviates the Chinese advantage in wages, especially if America can make better robots–good for companies, but not for workers in either country. That is, production may return to the US, but jobs will not. In countries with declining populations, having robots do the work may reduce the attractiveness of importing uncivilizable bomb-chucking morons from the bush world.

A second crucial question: What will we do with people who have nothing to do? This has been a hidden problem for a long time, solved to date by child-labor laws, compulsory attendance in high school, the growth of universities as holding tanks, welfare populations, and vast bureaucracies of people who pretend to be employed. Few of these do anything productive, but are supported and kept off the job market by the rest of us. But there are limits to the capacity of Starbuck’s to soak up college graduates. (The economic fate of America may depend on our consumption of overpriced coffee.)

As time goes on and fewer and fewer people can find work, and particularly the less intelligent, something will have to give. We won’t see it coming. We never see anything coming. Businessmen will observe productivity going up and labor costs going down. What could be wrong with that? Businessmen do not concern themselves with social questions. Methinks, however, that social questions are about to concern themselves with businessmen.

As standards of living decrease, unrest will come. I will guess that much of Donald Trump’s popularity arises from the sending of factories to China by the corporations that rule America. Now the robots are going to take the remaining jobs. Economists will chatter of this principle and that curve and what Aristotle said about Veblen, but in a free market for labor, robots will win. If we have a high minimum wage, business will automate. If we have a low minimum wage, they will automate, but a few years later.

ORDER IT NOW

The obvious solution, one I think inevitable within a few decades unless we want a revolution, is a guaranteed minimum income, enough to live on comfortably, for everyone. Whether this is a good idea can be debated, but it seems likely to be the only idea. Capitalists will tell me that I do not understand markets, or capital flows or pricing mechanisms, and that I am against freedom. I will respond that they need to wake up and look around. And I will point out that economics has become a tedious form of Left-Right metaphysics, Keynes versus the Austrian School, capitalism versus socialism, all unconnected to onrushing reality.

What would be the effects of a guaranteed income? Godawful, I would guess. Some people, probably including those who read columns on the web, would read, listen to music, drink wine and talk with friends, hike in the Himalayas, scuba dive, and earn doctorates in physics. But most would get up every morning, bored, without purpose, anticipating just another of unending days of television, beer, tedium, no driving desire to do anything but discontent with nothing to do. Would the young even go to school? They would have no need. What has happened among the welfare populations that in effect have a guaranteed minimum income?

See? We are doomed. It warms the cockles of a curmudgeon’s heart. Whatever a cockle is.

I was talking with my 10 year old daughter about this, discussing robots in fast food restaurants. After some thought, her comment was “But daddy, if robots do all the jobs, where will people work?” If only our politicians were as smart as 4th graders.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

America’s best , and my favorite, Societal Analyst strikes again.
This Second Industrial Revolution is now upon us and its impact will be as fully transformative as was the shift from a primarily agriculture based society ( America 1840 ) to an industrially based society ( America 1940 ). A very important difference will be the speed at which it will occur and the dramatic shift in social organization it will require.
It’s impact is already being seen in all those “Millennials” ( many with college degrees ) still “living at home”, loosened standards for Social Security Disability status that doubled the rolls, the inane push of the current administration to have every semi-literate high school grad become a college “student”, and poll after poll showing a majority of the population believing the country to be “on the wrong track”.
Since any direct solution to the problem would, of necessity, infringe on the freedom of action and impose social responsibilities on those benefitting from the problem ( i.e. our Gazillionaire Elite ), this crucially important development is one of those “unmentionables” too “divisive” for public discussion.

I feel reasonably certain some form of the Guaranteed Income will be enacted. There will be jostling about as the perpetually-privileged class finds itself pressured by new entrants from the former "We Work for a Living" class. That means negroes and mexicans, already chronically pissed-off at the injustice of their station, will be agitating about white people getting handouts as big as theirs, and healthcare and free school lunches.

What no one points out any more -- for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide -- is that the problem is overpopulation. Has been for 50 years, and worsens daily. Eventually, everybody cannot be fed and housed adequately because there simply will not be adequate resources. And then, the house of cards collapses. Famine, pestilence, war, death ... the usual.

All activities of "civilization" seem to be little more than feeble efforts to postpone the inevitable. And to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.

America's best , and my favorite, Societal Analyst strikes again.
This Second Industrial Revolution is now upon us and its impact will be as fully transformative as was the shift from a primarily agriculture based society ( America 1840 ) to an industrially based society ( America 1940 ). A very important difference will be the speed at which it will occur and the dramatic shift in social organization it will require.
It's impact is already being seen in all those "Millennials" ( many with college degrees ) still "living at home", loosened standards for Social Security Disability status that doubled the rolls, the inane push of the current administration to have every semi-literate high school grad become a college "student", and poll after poll showing a majority of the population believing the country to be "on the wrong track".
Since any direct solution to the problem would, of necessity, infringe on the freedom of action and impose social responsibilities on those benefitting from the problem ( i.e. our Gazillionaire Elite ), this crucially important development is one of those "unmentionables" too "divisive" for public discussion.

So, OldeGuy, you still live?

I feel reasonably certain some form of the Guaranteed Income will be enacted. There will be jostling about as the perpetually-privileged class finds itself pressured by new entrants from the former “We Work for a Living” class. That means negroes and mexicans, already chronically pissed-off at the injustice of their station, will be agitating about white people getting handouts as big as theirs, and healthcare and free school lunches.

What no one points out any more — for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide — is that the problem is overpopulation. Has been for 50 years, and worsens daily. Eventually, everybody cannot be fed and housed adequately because there simply will not be adequate resources. And then, the house of cards collapses. Famine, pestilence, war, death … the usual.

All activities of “civilization” seem to be little more than feeble efforts to postpone the inevitable. And to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.

"So, Oldeguy, you still live ?
Yeah, the Grim Reaper's scythe barely missed a while back, but only the Good die young.
Have to say that I really can't agree concerning overpopulation ( American, that is- Third World a different matter entirely ) as being that big a threat. Human ingenuity continues to outwit the Cassandras.
I do think, however, that you are spot on about the main barrier to be overcome as being psychological. American pride in being a Hard Worker with plenty of overtime needs to go the way of the horse drawn buggy. Instead of a minimum wage adjustment, we eventually will need a very sharply reduced work week with nobody proudly working two jobs. To a large extent, the problem will be in our own attitudes.

There is, of course, no arguing with the contention that population is becoming a significant problem. However, it's as much a problem of distribution as of finite resources. There is no doubt that a fairer distribution would go a some way to settling down social instabilities.

I'm an unrepentant, unreconstructed Malthusian. I believe that the human population should have topped-out at somewhere between one- and two-billion. When the Industrial Revolution began circa 1800 the population was about one-billion, so we know that the Earth can support that many people without coal. When the Petroleum Age began circa 1901 (Spindletop) the population was about two-billion, so we know that the Earth can support that many people without oil or natural gas. Granted, in both cases people were "supported" in a very minimal sense; none of us would want to live that way. Less than one-hundred years ago the richest man alive didn't have air-conditioning or access to antibiotics and was constantly sweating the next Polio-epidemic, not to mention Diphtheria, Typhus, the Flu, etc.

If it could be demonstrated that we will always be able to scrape together 1,800 calories per person per day, no matter how large the population gets, would that allay my fears? No, because there are other issues like depletion of nonrenewable resources, habitat-destruction and the (unnecessary) extinction of species, mass migrations of people and quality-of-life issues.

''What no one points out any more — for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide — is that the problem is overpopulation.''

You hit the nail on the head. i was thinking the exact same thing while reading the article. People are outbreeding faster than tech can create jobs. Today's shortage of jobs is not because of technology...it is despite technology. (Its technology that has created most of the jobs of today, to begin with. so i dont think technology is causing job shortage.) The shortage is due to failure of technology to create as many jobs as needed due to overpopulation.

Edit: I am talking from a perspective from what is happening in the world as a whole.

There’s a fly in the ointment of a guaranteed minimum income: Immigration.

Offer every adult American citizen a $30k minimum income, and you make becoming an American an even more desirable objective. Think of the hordes coming into the country from far and wide to enjoy that lifestyle. Beats scrounging for food in Guatemala or Nigeria.

A guaranteed minimum income would require a very serious debate about immigration and border control. And, frankly, I don’t see that happening.

I feel reasonably certain some form of the Guaranteed Income will be enacted. There will be jostling about as the perpetually-privileged class finds itself pressured by new entrants from the former "We Work for a Living" class. That means negroes and mexicans, already chronically pissed-off at the injustice of their station, will be agitating about white people getting handouts as big as theirs, and healthcare and free school lunches.

What no one points out any more -- for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide -- is that the problem is overpopulation. Has been for 50 years, and worsens daily. Eventually, everybody cannot be fed and housed adequately because there simply will not be adequate resources. And then, the house of cards collapses. Famine, pestilence, war, death ... the usual.

All activities of "civilization" seem to be little more than feeble efforts to postpone the inevitable. And to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.

“So, Oldeguy, you still live ?
Yeah, the Grim Reaper’s scythe barely missed a while back, but only the Good die young.
Have to say that I really can’t agree concerning overpopulation ( American, that is- Third World a different matter entirely ) as being that big a threat. Human ingenuity continues to outwit the Cassandras.
I do think, however, that you are spot on about the main barrier to be overcome as being psychological. American pride in being a Hard Worker with plenty of overtime needs to go the way of the horse drawn buggy. Instead of a minimum wage adjustment, we eventually will need a very sharply reduced work week with nobody proudly working two jobs. To a large extent, the problem will be in our own attitudes.

Good article, Fred. I’ve been asking a lot of these same questions myself. The hype on robots is overblown, the problem is knowing how much overblown. We also have an over emphasis on college that ignores the good living people can have in the Trades. Robots will not be replacing plumbers and electricians anytime soon. Nor riggers, pipe-fitters and welders. Even so, sending our manufacturing across our borders was always a dumbass idea. We created the semiconductor industry here in the US. Now we don’t even make the machines required to manufacture semiconductors. That is just stupid beyond belief. The globalists have sold us out. They are traitors and they should be held accountable.

We’ve allowed the unions and the federal mafia to destroy our industries and take over what remains so it can control us. We used to have a commercial shipping industry until the maritime unions destroyed ti with government help. Now we only build warships. We only have one company building commercial airplanes. We used to have 3. The others have consolidated and now build only for the military.

I can tell you what the future holds if we continue as we are; expansive poverty, the government dole, and endless wars created by the government to kill off large portions of the population so the elites don’t have to worry about a revolution. Maybe the grubers rise up and kill them before that comes about. It would take their worries about the future away and it is the right thing to do which is probably why it will never happen in this banana republic.

To write that unions destroyed our industries is nonsense. Unions were the leading force in bringing about the 40 hour work week, paid holidays, health benefits, safety regulations and an end to child labor besides a living wage that allowed millions to buy homes, feed their families and send their kids to school. Show me the union man who has a golden parachute, a couple of mansions, a few luxury cars, a yacht and a mistress set up in an apt in Manhattan. The image of the lazy union man is an image created by millionaires who want to pay their workers slave wages. Union jobs mean a strong middle class which means a healthy country. Non-union means slave wages and a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

Agree with most of what you say, but welding on vehicle assembly lines was among the earliest and most successful applications of industrial robots, and that started long ago.

For Fred,

If you believe this, I’d like to sell you stock in my venture to make radioactive dog-food on Mars.

Beautiful way to avoid the 'bridge' cliche.

A point I arrived at by myself many years ago is that, while robots may be more capital-efficient than humans at some tasks that involve mechanical action, swivelling to make welds, moving loads, &c., humans are far more energy-efficient.

Robots are thus very bad for the environment, even excepting the resources to make them (where Tesla vehicles also fail, on energy efficiency, too).

For other OPs who speak of overpopulation, I agree 100%, but since a UN population conference in the very late 70s or early 80s, everyone is supposed to ignore that point, because the delegates from places with mullahs and many of those with witch doctors claimed that birth control is wacist.

The situation is hopeless. Look at photos of the Earth from space in the late 60s and early 70s, and compare with those now.

Some populations are clearly locust-like.

I own three robots, all toys. One an ersatz insect that can be set on wheels or insect legs, one that 'converses' after you clap your hands and address it (both Japanese), and a toy car, made in China, which has a microcontroller, but is basically the same as the 'bump into things and reverse' toys that were based on simple electronic switches ... but it plays inane Chinese techno music at the same time, which can be fun.

It is possible to program the insectoid to be interesting in a pen with the car, or on free range by itself.

Care (aged, handicapped) robots are a major locus of research in Japan, mainly to avoid being swamped by alien people.

On the sex-robot theme, only seen it once, but the U.S. movie Cherry 2000 is old yet has its good points. Not a very serious work, but fun.

There's a fly in the ointment of a guaranteed minimum income: Immigration.

Offer every adult American citizen a $30k minimum income, and you make becoming an American an even more desirable objective. Think of the hordes coming into the country from far and wide to enjoy that lifestyle. Beats scrounging for food in Guatemala or Nigeria.

A guaranteed minimum income would require a very serious debate about immigration and border control. And, frankly, I don't see that happening.

Yes. Closed borders, and mandatory sterilization after two, or one. Or maybe, depending on your social-biological profile, none. And you’re right, nobody is thinking about this.

In truth, we already have a guaranteed minimum income, resulting in an explosion in r-selected reproduction and gang warfare among surplus males. Again, nobody will think critically about this.

If you remove all the crap from Marx — surplus value of labor, etc. — at least his basic economic prediction is coming true: capital is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few leaving the remainder of the population too impoverished to further enrich the capitalists. Marx predicted this would lead to a new economic/political/social system and the evolution of a new kind of man. Ain’t gonna happen!

Ultimately we will have to redistribute resources based on some other metric than hours of labor and this will probably have to be done, as Mr. Reed predicts, via the political system. This poses several problems that Mr. Reed addresses tangentially at best:

First, how are we to ensure and maintain social order, without the economy’s wage-based enforcement system that currently does most of this for us? The country’s worst elements of the urban underclass and the anomie that is currently eroding the country’s older, White, unskilled, working class shows on a small scale what will happen if this problem is not addressed.

Second, how are we to ensure that the enormous power which controlling all individual incomes gives to the state does not lead to a tyranny heretofore unimaginable? On the other side of the coin, how are we to ensure that the people’s will in democratic polities does not lead to economically destructive and unsustainable redistribution of wealth and production?

Third, how are we to ensure continued scientific and technological progress and the increased human comfort – if not happiness – that these bring in their wake without a system that exorbitantly rewards human endeavors thyat achieve these ends?

The science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s was optimistic that these problems would be solved. More recent sci fi with the same concerns has been mostly dystopic.

The trouble with a guaranteed dole/”Citizen’s Income” is it leads to guaranteed minimum rents and guaranteed minimum grocery and fuel prices, at the whim of the sellers who will be casting envious eyes on the success of their more “entrepreneurial” competitors.
Leading to howling demands from the citizens for rent & price controls (plus a gazillion more well-paid Bottom Inspectors, in addition to the TSA, to enforce the regs.). Leading in turn to disincentives to provide accommodation for profit, and goods for sale, and markets exited left and right.
Old school Eastern Bloc communism was a pretty good approximation of that sort of “can’t please everyone all the time, so why bother at all?” set-up. Luckily, being a brit, I’m an olympic-class queuer and form-filler, so will have a splendid hobby to occupy my time while the economy crumbles back to barter and subsistence gardening (using tweed-effect, drunken, foul-mouthed, tobacco-chewing robots, no doubt).

To make Fred’s story short;
It took you Yanks 200 years to go from a 40,000 (adjusted) dollar black slave to a 100,000 dollar chromium slave!

Unless "The Terminator" will come to pass, I'm not too worried about chromium slaves someday insisting that they are equal to those who made them...at least, not when such an insistence is based on inverting a century of observation.

DNA is destiny. Only POMEA (People Of Mostly European Ancestry) can produce Western Civ, and only POMEA have proven to toil under its rules and produce the modern world's marvels.

Either the 91% of Earth's non-Caucasian populace stops trying to exterminate or breed POMEA out of existence or they kill off the goose that lays all the golden eggs they're streaming north to obtain.

Even the vaunted "high IQ" East Asians have proven to mostly be good at reverse engineering the innovations of the West. It's no wonder that China's rulers spend so much energy hacking Western firms' computers and stealing their innovations. If they could produce them themselves, why would they need to steal?

Without genetic Europeans (people whose ancestors spent most of the last few thousand years in Europe, that is), the world looks like Africa, South America and Asia.

Notice from where all these immivasion waves come? Imagine leaving home, traveling thousands of km's and arriving, only to find that the place to which you immigrated now looks exactly like the place from where you emigrated?

Massive change of this nature must be discovered, organically. Attempts to centrally manage it will fail, fail, fail, fail…… until failure is no longer an option.

Frankly, I envision H.G. Wells’ Time Machine, except the Eloi will be stupid, fat, ugly, bovine mental defectives while the Morlocks will be beautiful, intelligent, graceful and technologically gifted.

The future will either be stripped of intelligent people who can create the high technology of the present and near-future, or they will simply leave the masses of dull-witted people behind.

The reality is that the cutoff for the highly productive is increasingly above the entrance level for MENSA. I think it’s probably nearing 140 IQ, or only about 1 in 250 Caucasians.

This will exacerbate ENVY, especially racial envy (which is the basis for the anti-racism cult.) One real risk will be a Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge style pogrom on the educated and intelligent. Essentially no one living today has any idea how dependent they are upon the core of bright people providing all the goodies, and how crushing will be the poverty should their envy yield that kind of barbarism.

"...Essentially no one living today has any idea how dependent they are upon the core of bright people providing all the goodies, and how crushing will be the poverty should their envy yield that kind of barbarism."

The thing is, that up to this point, nature has required a polyglot of people just to produce one verifiable bumptious cretin as yourself.

To make Fred's story short;It took you Yanks 200 years to go from a 40,000 (adjusted) dollar black slave to a 100,000 dollar chromium slave!

To make Fred’s story short;
It took you Yanks 200 years to go from a 40,000 (adjusted) dollar black slave to a 100,000 dollar chromium slave!

Unless “The Terminator” will come to pass, I’m not too worried about chromium slaves someday insisting that they are equal to those who made them…at least, not when such an insistence is based on inverting a century of observation.

DNA is destiny.
Only POMEA (People Of Mostly European Ancestry) can produce Western Civ, and only POMEA have proven to toil under its rules and produce the modern world’s marvels.

Either the 91% of Earth’s non-Caucasian populace stops trying to exterminate or breed POMEA out of existence or they kill off the goose that lays all the golden eggs they’re streaming north to obtain.

Even the vaunted “high IQ” East Asians have proven to mostly be good at reverse engineering the innovations of the West. It’s no wonder that China’s rulers spend so much energy hacking Western firms’ computers and stealing their innovations. If they could produce them themselves, why would they need to steal?

Without genetic Europeans (people whose ancestors spent most of the last few thousand years in Europe, that is), the world looks like Africa, South America and Asia.

Notice from where all these immivasion waves come? Imagine leaving home, traveling thousands of km’s and arriving, only to find that the place to which you immigrated now looks exactly like the place from where you emigrated?

Good article, Fred. I've been asking a lot of these same questions myself. The hype on robots is overblown, the problem is knowing how much overblown. We also have an over emphasis on college that ignores the good living people can have in the Trades. Robots will not be replacing plumbers and electricians anytime soon. Nor riggers, pipe-fitters and welders. Even so, sending our manufacturing across our borders was always a dumbass idea. We created the semiconductor industry here in the US. Now we don't even make the machines required to manufacture semiconductors. That is just stupid beyond belief. The globalists have sold us out. They are traitors and they should be held accountable.

We've allowed the unions and the federal mafia to destroy our industries and take over what remains so it can control us. We used to have a commercial shipping industry until the maritime unions destroyed ti with government help. Now we only build warships. We only have one company building commercial airplanes. We used to have 3. The others have consolidated and now build only for the military.

I can tell you what the future holds if we continue as we are; expansive poverty, the government dole, and endless wars created by the government to kill off large portions of the population so the elites don't have to worry about a revolution. Maybe the grubers rise up and kill them before that comes about. It would take their worries about the future away and it is the right thing to do which is probably why it will never happen in this banana republic.

To write that unions destroyed our industries is nonsense. Unions were the leading force in bringing about the 40 hour work week, paid holidays, health benefits, safety regulations and an end to child labor besides a living wage that allowed millions to buy homes, feed their families and send their kids to school. Show me the union man who has a golden parachute, a couple of mansions, a few luxury cars, a yacht and a mistress set up in an apt in Manhattan. The image of the lazy union man is an image created by millionaires who want to pay their workers slave wages. Union jobs mean a strong middle class which means a healthy country. Non-union means slave wages and a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

Unions have both good and bad aspects. The maritime unions destroyed commercial shipbuilding in the US with the complicit help of the government. The same is true of the auto industry where UAW thugs stole billions of dollars of taxpayer money given to them by the obama government as a payoff for their past and continuous support. And the union members who have the luxuries you describe are the corrupt union bosses who live large on the stupidity of their gruber members.

To write that unions destroyed our industries is nonsense. Unions were the leading force in bringing about the 40 hour work week, paid holidays, health benefits, safety regulations and an end to child labor besides a living wage that allowed millions to buy homes, feed their families and send their kids to school. Show me the union man who has a golden parachute, a couple of mansions, a few luxury cars, a yacht and a mistress set up in an apt in Manhattan. The image of the lazy union man is an image created by millionaires who want to pay their workers slave wages. Union jobs mean a strong middle class which means a healthy country. Non-union means slave wages and a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

Unions have both good and bad aspects. The maritime unions destroyed commercial shipbuilding in the US with the complicit help of the government. The same is true of the auto industry where UAW thugs stole billions of dollars of taxpayer money given to them by the obama government as a payoff for their past and continuous support. And the union members who have the luxuries you describe are the corrupt union bosses who live large on the stupidity of their gruber members.

To say that the unions destroyed the auto industry while management was pocketing millions, living like robber barons and moving factories out of the country so they could pay slave wages, is ridiculous. How much do you think the average union man made building cars in the US? Stop believing the propaganda put out by management, these workers were making enough to live a middle class lifestyle, buy a house, send the kids to school, maybe take a vacation once a year. You've bought into management and ownership's propaganda. Look at who's living like kings and look who's going into foreclosure. It might be too late for you to change your mind, but I assure you, you are mistaken.

To write that unions destroyed our industries is nonsense. Unions were the leading force in bringing about the 40 hour work week, paid holidays, health benefits, safety regulations and an end to child labor besides a living wage that allowed millions to buy homes, feed their families and send their kids to school. Show me the union man who has a golden parachute, a couple of mansions, a few luxury cars, a yacht and a mistress set up in an apt in Manhattan. The image of the lazy union man is an image created by millionaires who want to pay their workers slave wages. Union jobs mean a strong middle class which means a healthy country. Non-union means slave wages and a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

Unions have both good and bad aspects. The maritime unions destroyed commercial shipbuilding in the US with the complicit help of the government. The same is true of the auto industry where UAW thugs stole billions of dollars of taxpayer money given to them by the obama government as a payoff for their past and continuous support. And the union members who have the luxuries you describe are the corrupt union bosses who live large on the stupidity of their gruber members.

To say that the unions destroyed the auto industry while management was pocketing millions, living like robber barons and moving factories out of the country so they could pay slave wages, is ridiculous. How much do you think the average union man made building cars in the US? Stop believing the propaganda put out by management, these workers were making enough to live a middle class lifestyle, buy a house, send the kids to school, maybe take a vacation once a year. You’ve bought into management and ownership’s propaganda. Look at who’s living like kings and look who’s going into foreclosure. It might be too late for you to change your mind, but I assure you, you are mistaken.

My point is that when it comes to the UAW, there is little difference between them and the robber baron management, and they both stole billions of dollars from US! I don't buy UAW thug made amerikan cars anymore and I never will again. And the UAW union bosses are lining their pockets just like the management is. The gruber members support them.

I am not against private sector unions, I am against all public sector unions. Private sector unions can serve a purpose, but their leadership is mostly corrupt anymore just like the government. They need to clean house.

I’m skeptical about the feasibility of basic income, since it requires, in even the more modest proposals, of a huge increase in the tax base. Yet a society where robots and computers do most of the jobs, would be much more unequal than the one today. A very small percentage of people, the owners of the means of production, would take most of the income. And they probably will squeeze it out of their home countries and send it to tax havens, as they have done increasingly in the last decades. If it is difficult to fund a basic income scheme now, it will probably much difficult in the future.

I think that if technology is too disruptive, a yet unspoken solution might be to ban such technology. If this sounds ridiculous, this was a policy that has been historically used in many countries. China was historically wary of disruptive technologies that created social upheavals, and yet it was able to remain one of the world’s largest economies for many centuries. Other examples are in the Islamic world. Such societies tend to be conservative and economically stagnant, but a majority of the people might prefer such situation to that to a disruption that leaves them without a job or income.

I think that you're very close to the crux of the problem- who, exactly, will wind up "owning" the means of production ?
1 ) If the current system continues along its current, though greatly accelerated path, the tiny Owners Class continues to concentrate wealth and the vast Non Owners Class sinks into Under Class serfdom.
2 ) Even if inhibiting robotics were feasible ( doubtful ), would it be desirable ? After all, the U.S. could have "full employment" overnight by simply destroying its own electric power grid, though at the cost of severe reduction in living standard.
3 ) A way out of the conundrum might be to so thoroughly regulate the production of all goods and services as to make them, in effect, public utilities. The society's jobs would all be shared with a steadily decreasing work week. Both income and increased free time would be the Social Dividend for being in the ( mandatory ) Work Force. The diffusion of the benefits of the Second Industrial Revolution would be maximized and its costs minimized.
I know that sounds both radical and visionary, but the alternative ( just let current trends continue ) would be an inevitable horror story.

True. There's no way the productive class can be forced to subsidise the unproductive people. They will simply have no use for them and no incentive to buy their support or co-operation - and nothing to sell them because the non-producers will have no wages with which to buy it. You can already see how much this elite despises the ordinary people by the way they support their replacement through immigration. They have no interest in being part of a larger nation or community that includes their inferiors, as they see them. Guaranteed basic income for everyone? You might as well be asking them to provide rabbits or cockroaches with a basic income.

All what's there to be said regarding humans and freedom was told by Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor.

Isn't material freedom, and troublelessness, what has been blighting white Westerners for decades?

However, the illusion of freedom is in the casket of illusions that still ease life. Let it be.
Too bad some of the smartest people can use such illusion as the best ground for their power (no limits in brainwashing possibility, when all the designated subjects believe in their freedom of thinking, and that all have more or less the same intellect) ... but that's almost another topic.

To say that the unions destroyed the auto industry while management was pocketing millions, living like robber barons and moving factories out of the country so they could pay slave wages, is ridiculous. How much do you think the average union man made building cars in the US? Stop believing the propaganda put out by management, these workers were making enough to live a middle class lifestyle, buy a house, send the kids to school, maybe take a vacation once a year. You've bought into management and ownership's propaganda. Look at who's living like kings and look who's going into foreclosure. It might be too late for you to change your mind, but I assure you, you are mistaken.

My point is that when it comes to the UAW, there is little difference between them and the robber baron management, and they both stole billions of dollars from US! I don’t buy UAW thug made amerikan cars anymore and I never will again. And the UAW union bosses are lining their pockets just like the management is. The gruber members support them.

I am not against private sector unions, I am against all public sector unions. Private sector unions can serve a purpose, but their leadership is mostly corrupt anymore just like the government. They need to clean house.

"They [labor unions] need to clean house." Agree 100%. I suppose labor unions have some theoretical merit, but the quality of the union leadership that I've seen in my area is pretty awful. (I'm not defending the excesses and abuses of management and capital either, which are real enough.)

A few quick points: (1) a common practice at one local employer is to "reward" union negotiators with unposted, no-bid promotions. One lead union negotiator actually applied for a promotion while contract talks were ongoing. He got the job; the talks failed; and workers lost their contract and had terms and conditions of work imposed on them; (2) Taft-Hartley, the dues check-off, and group health insurance ought to be looked at by union leaders to see how they act as spike strips to workers' solidarity. I'm not holding my breath.

Okay, you're against corruption, that means you're against human nature. The attacks on unions are actually attacks on the American working man by those who want to reduce him to a 3rd world peon. Fix management corruption, fix ownership corruption, fix government corruption, then come back and talk about union corruption. How many bankers went to jail for their corruption in the last economic crisis? Our next president is one of the most corrupt women to walk the earth, but you want to bust the unions which will only result in lower wages and benefits for workers. The problem isn't the unions, the problem is poor, corrupt management and I don't see that ever changing.

My point is that when it comes to the UAW, there is little difference between them and the robber baron management, and they both stole billions of dollars from US! I don't buy UAW thug made amerikan cars anymore and I never will again. And the UAW union bosses are lining their pockets just like the management is. The gruber members support them.

I am not against private sector unions, I am against all public sector unions. Private sector unions can serve a purpose, but their leadership is mostly corrupt anymore just like the government. They need to clean house.

“They [labor unions] need to clean house.” Agree 100%. I suppose labor unions have some theoretical merit, but the quality of the union leadership that I’ve seen in my area is pretty awful. (I’m not defending the excesses and abuses of management and capital either, which are real enough.)

A few quick points: (1) a common practice at one local employer is to “reward” union negotiators with unposted, no-bid promotions. One lead union negotiator actually applied for a promotion while contract talks were ongoing. He got the job; the talks failed; and workers lost their contract and had terms and conditions of work imposed on them; (2) Taft-Hartley, the dues check-off, and group health insurance ought to be looked at by union leaders to see how they act as spike strips to workers’ solidarity. I’m not holding my breath.

I'm skeptical about the feasibility of basic income, since it requires, in even the more modest proposals, of a huge increase in the tax base. Yet a society where robots and computers do most of the jobs, would be much more unequal than the one today. A very small percentage of people, the owners of the means of production, would take most of the income. And they probably will squeeze it out of their home countries and send it to tax havens, as they have done increasingly in the last decades. If it is difficult to fund a basic income scheme now, it will probably much difficult in the future.

I think that if technology is too disruptive, a yet unspoken solution might be to ban such technology. If this sounds ridiculous, this was a policy that has been historically used in many countries. China was historically wary of disruptive technologies that created social upheavals, and yet it was able to remain one of the world’s largest economies for many centuries. Other examples are in the Islamic world. Such societies tend to be conservative and economically stagnant, but a majority of the people might prefer such situation to that to a disruption that leaves them without a job or income.

I think that you’re very close to the crux of the problem- who, exactly, will wind up “owning” the means of production ?
1 ) If the current system continues along its current, though greatly accelerated path, the tiny Owners Class continues to concentrate wealth and the vast Non Owners Class sinks into Under Class serfdom.
2 ) Even if inhibiting robotics were feasible ( doubtful ), would it be desirable ? After all, the U.S. could have “full employment” overnight by simply destroying its own electric power grid, though at the cost of severe reduction in living standard.
3 ) A way out of the conundrum might be to so thoroughly regulate the production of all goods and services as to make them, in effect, public utilities. The society’s jobs would all be shared with a steadily decreasing work week. Both income and increased free time would be the Social Dividend for being in the ( mandatory ) Work Force. The diffusion of the benefits of the Second Industrial Revolution would be maximized and its costs minimized.
I know that sounds both radical and visionary, but the alternative ( just let current trends continue ) would be an inevitable horror story.

Philip Jose Farmer’s 1968 novella Riders of the Purple Wage is set in a future where very few people are actually needed for jobs. Almost everyone ekes out their living through a small minimum income, called purple because you are entitled to it by birth the way old nobility had entitlements by birth.
The only way to get out of this lifestyle is to either be very creative so you can produce things like new technology or art, or by being a criminal.
In this future the government does not do anything about the problem of people laying about producing offspring, so the population has continued to explode and almost everyone lives crammed into giant arcologies. Even the old bridges and highways that were once used to commute to work are now occupied. The human race is reduced to serving as a sort of genetic mixing bowl from which the occasional exceptional individuals emerge who actually get to do something meaningful with their lives.
This sort of minimum income scheme seems inevitable, but I can’t see any Western style government making it workable over the long term by severely restricting reproduction.

My point is that when it comes to the UAW, there is little difference between them and the robber baron management, and they both stole billions of dollars from US! I don't buy UAW thug made amerikan cars anymore and I never will again. And the UAW union bosses are lining their pockets just like the management is. The gruber members support them.

I am not against private sector unions, I am against all public sector unions. Private sector unions can serve a purpose, but their leadership is mostly corrupt anymore just like the government. They need to clean house.

Okay, you’re against corruption, that means you’re against human nature. The attacks on unions are actually attacks on the American working man by those who want to reduce him to a 3rd world peon. Fix management corruption, fix ownership corruption, fix government corruption, then come back and talk about union corruption. How many bankers went to jail for their corruption in the last economic crisis? Our next president is one of the most corrupt women to walk the earth, but you want to bust the unions which will only result in lower wages and benefits for workers. The problem isn’t the unions, the problem is poor, corrupt management and I don’t see that ever changing.

"the problem is poor, corrupt management"... on the part of union management, the political go betweens, and corporate elites. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

I'm increasingly tempted to tell people who talk about freedom that I am against freedom, or paraphrase George W. Bush and say "we hate you for your freedom".

Would be fun, wouldn't it?

All what’s there to be said regarding humans and freedom was told by Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.

Isn’t material freedom, and troublelessness, what has been blighting white Westerners for decades?

However, the illusion of freedom is in the casket of illusions that still ease life. Let it be.
Too bad some of the smartest people can use such illusion as the best ground for their power (no limits in brainwashing possibility, when all the designated subjects believe in their freedom of thinking, and that all have more or less the same intellect) … but that’s almost another topic.

To make Fred’s story short;
It took you Yanks 200 years to go from a 40,000 (adjusted) dollar black slave to a 100,000 dollar chromium slave!

Unless "The Terminator" will come to pass, I'm not too worried about chromium slaves someday insisting that they are equal to those who made them...at least, not when such an insistence is based on inverting a century of observation.

DNA is destiny. Only POMEA (People Of Mostly European Ancestry) can produce Western Civ, and only POMEA have proven to toil under its rules and produce the modern world's marvels.

Either the 91% of Earth's non-Caucasian populace stops trying to exterminate or breed POMEA out of existence or they kill off the goose that lays all the golden eggs they're streaming north to obtain.

Even the vaunted "high IQ" East Asians have proven to mostly be good at reverse engineering the innovations of the West. It's no wonder that China's rulers spend so much energy hacking Western firms' computers and stealing their innovations. If they could produce them themselves, why would they need to steal?

Without genetic Europeans (people whose ancestors spent most of the last few thousand years in Europe, that is), the world looks like Africa, South America and Asia.

Notice from where all these immivasion waves come? Imagine leaving home, traveling thousands of km's and arriving, only to find that the place to which you immigrated now looks exactly like the place from where you emigrated?

You sure have a point. The possibilities of the mind aren’t fully resumed by mere IQ, and overall,
the Caucasoid brain is going to remain unmatched as to cultural endeavours.

Bach’s, Einstein’s IQ was about 160-165.
If that was all what’s to intellect, we’d have 1000 Bachs and 1000 Einsteins a year in China alone.

a) Eliminate all welfare and social services.
b) Each person (citizen) in the US receives a (somewhat age adjusted) stipend upon turning 13 yo., allowing that person to live a minimal life-style.
c) The stipend would be paid regardless of other income.
d) The stipend would permanently cease following the birth of a child (ie – both mother & father lose the money).

This might solve both overpopulation and under-parenting, as well as ensuring that every child is really wanted.

To make Fred’s story short;
It took you Yanks 200 years to go from a 40,000 (adjusted) dollar black slave to a 100,000 dollar chromium slave!

Unless "The Terminator" will come to pass, I'm not too worried about chromium slaves someday insisting that they are equal to those who made them...at least, not when such an insistence is based on inverting a century of observation.

DNA is destiny. Only POMEA (People Of Mostly European Ancestry) can produce Western Civ, and only POMEA have proven to toil under its rules and produce the modern world's marvels.

Either the 91% of Earth's non-Caucasian populace stops trying to exterminate or breed POMEA out of existence or they kill off the goose that lays all the golden eggs they're streaming north to obtain.

Even the vaunted "high IQ" East Asians have proven to mostly be good at reverse engineering the innovations of the West. It's no wonder that China's rulers spend so much energy hacking Western firms' computers and stealing their innovations. If they could produce them themselves, why would they need to steal?

Without genetic Europeans (people whose ancestors spent most of the last few thousand years in Europe, that is), the world looks like Africa, South America and Asia.

Notice from where all these immivasion waves come? Imagine leaving home, traveling thousands of km's and arriving, only to find that the place to which you immigrated now looks exactly like the place from where you emigrated?

“It’s no wonder that China’s rulers spend so much energy hacking Western firms’ computers and stealing their innovations. If they could produce them themselves, why would they need to steal?”

Don’t forget that that’s the equivalent of what the USA’s nascent industries did throughout the 19th century.

To write that unions destroyed our industries is nonsense. Unions were the leading force in bringing about the 40 hour work week, paid holidays, health benefits, safety regulations and an end to child labor besides a living wage that allowed millions to buy homes, feed their families and send their kids to school. Show me the union man who has a golden parachute, a couple of mansions, a few luxury cars, a yacht and a mistress set up in an apt in Manhattan. The image of the lazy union man is an image created by millionaires who want to pay their workers slave wages. Union jobs mean a strong middle class which means a healthy country. Non-union means slave wages and a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

Unions thriving while the US got richer does not mean that the unions were the cause of the thriving. Unless of course US Exceptionalism.

Read a little history about the poverty and suffering in the US at the start of the industrial revolution. The wealthy prospered while the working class lived in overcrowded tenements, working like slaves. This is fact. They even have pictures. Without unions, and good men like George Bailey we'd all be living in your Potterstowns. Look at what a union carpenter and a non-union carpenter make in NYC. The difference is middle class and barely surviving, but not your concern, right?

Unions thriving while the US got richer does not mean that the unions were the cause of the thriving. Unless of course US Exceptionalism.

Read a little history about the poverty and suffering in the US at the start of the industrial revolution. The wealthy prospered while the working class lived in overcrowded tenements, working like slaves. This is fact. They even have pictures. Without unions, and good men like George Bailey we’d all be living in your Potterstowns. Look at what a union carpenter and a non-union carpenter make in NYC. The difference is middle class and barely surviving, but not your concern, right?

What is apparently under everyone’s radar is that this is NOT “new” by any stretch of the imagination. Has nobody ever been in a manufacturing plant in the past half century? Good grief.

Back in the 1980′s I made a very comfortable living finding homes for industrial robots. In a typical automotive assembly plant I could replace at least a dozen UAW sloths per shift. I may have felt a twinge of sympathy for the displaced sloths, but for the fact that during pre-install plant visits I’d routinely see them sleeping (or just MIA) while the assembly line kept rolling past their empty work stations. Plus the UAW had its “job bank” where the laid-off “workers” would sit in a bar all day drinking while collecting 90% of their former paycheck indefinitely until a new job could be found. This often resulted in them becoming alcoholic or otherwise addicted which would get them a free trip to rehab (all while still collecting that paycheck) and they were allowed as many relapses as they wanted until they could find another job in the plant where attendance was optional. And of course we all know the end result – those fantastic Big Three cars from the 1970′s – 2000′s and the equally fantastic financial performance of GM, Chrysler, and Ford..

In a modern factory, just about everything that can be done by robots is. The humans are working in maintenance and plant engineering and construction. They keep the robots working, change the layout and move the robots to accommodate product line changes, secure the property, and manage the business. The companies that build the robots have done well, but so many of their robots have been exported to Mexico and China and now they’re having to compete with China and Korea for robot construction. Those are the high skill jobs that really hurt us when we lose them.

We can entice manufacturing to return to the USA through sensible trade policies, sensible tax policies, and sensible environmental policies. But with the skill levels required to operate modern manufacturing plants, this won’t help our population of sub 85 IQ laborers. So we are stuck with a major demographic problem whether we can restore our manufacturing base or not. And meanwhile we are importing low IQ populations by the millions. Look at who is streaming across the Rio Grande – I’d wager we get fewer than a dozen with IQ above 100 each year. And these are the absolute last people we want, these are the people for whom we will have almost no use barring EMP attack or massive solar flares taking down our electrical grid for a decade. Is that our plan? That would at least explain our efforts to antagonize Russia and China…

A lot of the factory going overseas is exaggerated. Albany New York, not known for factory work is the nanotechnology capital of the US. The most factory lost jobs is in blue states like Ca with higher regulation, taxation and cost of living costs. Los Angeles lost more than most midwestern towns not because of jobs going to Mexico or China because companies like Jacobs Engineering went to Texas. Texas actually has more manufacturing than it did in 2,000. Los Angeles only gains in factory worked with some aerospace contracts or a company like Space X. In fact most factory worked will be geared toward the Space program like mining asteroids. China made a deal with Poland on space rockets. SO, China may lose out to countries like Poland in 10 years. If you want a fair deal with China pushed China to have to take in US Virtual Reality devices like Oculus Rift, the Chinese make their own. VR not the iphone is the next big step.

I'm skeptical about the feasibility of basic income, since it requires, in even the more modest proposals, of a huge increase in the tax base. Yet a society where robots and computers do most of the jobs, would be much more unequal than the one today. A very small percentage of people, the owners of the means of production, would take most of the income. And they probably will squeeze it out of their home countries and send it to tax havens, as they have done increasingly in the last decades. If it is difficult to fund a basic income scheme now, it will probably much difficult in the future.

I think that if technology is too disruptive, a yet unspoken solution might be to ban such technology. If this sounds ridiculous, this was a policy that has been historically used in many countries. China was historically wary of disruptive technologies that created social upheavals, and yet it was able to remain one of the world’s largest economies for many centuries. Other examples are in the Islamic world. Such societies tend to be conservative and economically stagnant, but a majority of the people might prefer such situation to that to a disruption that leaves them without a job or income.

True. There’s no way the productive class can be forced to subsidise the unproductive people. They will simply have no use for them and no incentive to buy their support or co-operation – and nothing to sell them because the non-producers will have no wages with which to buy it. You can already see how much this elite despises the ordinary people by the way they support their replacement through immigration. They have no interest in being part of a larger nation or community that includes their inferiors, as they see them. Guaranteed basic income for everyone? You might as well be asking them to provide rabbits or cockroaches with a basic income.

Philip Jose Farmer's 1968 novella Riders of the Purple Wage is set in a future where very few people are actually needed for jobs. Almost everyone ekes out their living through a small minimum income, called purple because you are entitled to it by birth the way old nobility had entitlements by birth.
The only way to get out of this lifestyle is to either be very creative so you can produce things like new technology or art, or by being a criminal.
In this future the government does not do anything about the problem of people laying about producing offspring, so the population has continued to explode and almost everyone lives crammed into giant arcologies. Even the old bridges and highways that were once used to commute to work are now occupied. The human race is reduced to serving as a sort of genetic mixing bowl from which the occasional exceptional individuals emerge who actually get to do something meaningful with their lives.
This sort of minimum income scheme seems inevitable, but I can't see any Western style government making it workable over the long term by severely restricting reproduction.

“The human race is reduced to serving as a sort of genetic mixing bowl from which the occasional exceptional individuals emerge who actually get to do something meaningful with their lives.”

Sounds like Brazil/India too me. The future of the world looks more like India-Brazil rather than Sweden-Japan.

Sometimes, I think we exaggerate the effect of automation and robotics, sure its probably reduced 30 percent of the factory and office work since 1980 but there are still gains in some factory jobs about 3 percent even with the automation and shipping jobs overseas. Disneyland could now be staff mainly with robots but wages are still low enough to hire kids and immigrants for jobs at Disneyland between 10 to 15 an hour, so it has never invested in it.

What is apparently under everyone's radar is that this is NOT "new" by any stretch of the imagination. Has nobody ever been in a manufacturing plant in the past half century? Good grief.

Back in the 1980's I made a very comfortable living finding homes for industrial robots. In a typical automotive assembly plant I could replace at least a dozen UAW sloths per shift. I may have felt a twinge of sympathy for the displaced sloths, but for the fact that during pre-install plant visits I'd routinely see them sleeping (or just MIA) while the assembly line kept rolling past their empty work stations. Plus the UAW had its "job bank" where the laid-off "workers" would sit in a bar all day drinking while collecting 90% of their former paycheck indefinitely until a new job could be found. This often resulted in them becoming alcoholic or otherwise addicted which would get them a free trip to rehab (all while still collecting that paycheck) and they were allowed as many relapses as they wanted until they could find another job in the plant where attendance was optional. And of course we all know the end result - those fantastic Big Three cars from the 1970's - 2000's and the equally fantastic financial performance of GM, Chrysler, and Ford..

In a modern factory, just about everything that can be done by robots is. The humans are working in maintenance and plant engineering and construction. They keep the robots working, change the layout and move the robots to accommodate product line changes, secure the property, and manage the business. The companies that build the robots have done well, but so many of their robots have been exported to Mexico and China and now they're having to compete with China and Korea for robot construction. Those are the high skill jobs that really hurt us when we lose them.

We can entice manufacturing to return to the USA through sensible trade policies, sensible tax policies, and sensible environmental policies. But with the skill levels required to operate modern manufacturing plants, this won't help our population of sub 85 IQ laborers. So we are stuck with a major demographic problem whether we can restore our manufacturing base or not. And meanwhile we are importing low IQ populations by the millions. Look at who is streaming across the Rio Grande - I'd wager we get fewer than a dozen with IQ above 100 each year. And these are the absolute last people we want, these are the people for whom we will have almost no use barring EMP attack or massive solar flares taking down our electrical grid for a decade. Is that our plan? That would at least explain our efforts to antagonize Russia and China...

A lot of the factory going overseas is exaggerated. Albany New York, not known for factory work is the nanotechnology capital of the US. The most factory lost jobs is in blue states like Ca with higher regulation, taxation and cost of living costs. Los Angeles lost more than most midwestern towns not because of jobs going to Mexico or China because companies like Jacobs Engineering went to Texas. Texas actually has more manufacturing than it did in 2,000. Los Angeles only gains in factory worked with some aerospace contracts or a company like Space X. In fact most factory worked will be geared toward the Space program like mining asteroids. China made a deal with Poland on space rockets. SO, China may lose out to countries like Poland in 10 years. If you want a fair deal with China pushed China to have to take in US Virtual Reality devices like Oculus Rift, the Chinese make their own. VR not the iphone is the next big step.

I was talking with my 10 year old daughter about this, discussing robots in fast food restaurants. After some thought, her comment was "But daddy, if robots do all the jobs, where will people work?" If only our politicians were as smart as 4th graders.

We need a new frontier. A place that needs lots of people. A place that offers rewards commensurate to risks taken. We need a space program that can use unskilled(relatively) labor. Mining asteroids. Ice. Minerals. Precious metals. Diamonds.

You all overlook the ludite opton. The Amish rejected new technology and now thrive compared to the english farmers. Not only are they economically better off, their demographics are better and theyve preserved their culture in the face of modernism. That was no mean feat.

The three states with the biggest Amish numbers (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana) have a combined average population density of 243.4/sq.mi.Land for all?If England's current density of 1052.7/sq.mi., some 53 million, was reduced to that of the "Amish States" it would have 12,257,137 people, pretty much in line with its historical carrying capacity (complete with periodic famines).What are you going to do with 40-odd million excess peasant farmers?Short of an apocalypse, you just can't get there from here.

“A second crucial question: What will we do with people who have nothing to do?”

We need hobbies. I suggest speaker building.After the speakers are built then there will be listening to speakers.Next comes tweaking the speakers.This could take up quite a lot of hours in the day.
With hobbies people would not have time for mayhem.
There are many hobbies out there. One just needs to find something to get excited about.

If you've been around to listen to this for 5 decades, then you're past the point of it affecting your employement/income.

But I'm willing to bet that it's going to affect your grandchildren / great grandchildren, etc. You're free to disagree, but there are a couple of dynamics going on now that weren't in place in years past: 1 - overwhelming amounts of regulations that come with hiring individuals, 2- rising minimum wage. Many companies are doing the math and can see that $100k robot is a better deal than a $15/hr employee.

Employees create a great deal of uncertainty for owners - how much work will get done, who will call in sick, who will take disability, who will sue for harassment, who will just screw up all the time. Hmm, can you think of anything that might be a good replacement?

As I frequently say, when you actually sit down and think about the whole process from beginning to end, a robot is a rather Rube Goldberg way of accomplishing a simple task. There’s a lot of R&D, money, precision engineering, and software that goes into making a successful automation process. How does all of this end up being cheaper than merely hiring a person to perform the same task? Well, part of the answer is that the software and engineering components have already been outsourced to Asia and are produced by people making paltry wages. In effect, automation is simply another way to arbitrage the slave labor of the Third World. A robot manufactured in China is “Tele-Labor.” They do the work over there and, by virtue of a long-distance logistics train, we reap the benefits over here.

It’s very similar to how electricity works. You can think of an electrical current as “moving magnatism.” If you place like poles of two bar magnets together they will repel each other. If you firmly grasp one of the magnets in your hand, you can push around the other magnet around without actually touching it. That is the same principle behind, say, your ceiling fan. Down at the power plant a coal furnace heats up the water in a boiler to produce steam, which is then vented through a turbine to turn a shaft. Attached to that shaft is rotor consisting of some very large, heavy, powerful magnets, situated inside an enormous coil of wire. The rotating magnets induce a current in the coil, which the transmission lines carry to your house. Then the same process occurs in reverse, as the current forces the magnets in your ceiling fan’s electric motor to rotate. Looked at in the round, the magnets at the power plant are actuall pushing around the magnets in your fan; the force is simply mediated by the transmission mechanism of the elctrical grid.

“Tele-Labor” is a sort of cyborg electricity: half man, half machine. The “power plant” is the low-wage Chinese laborers. The electric current is the robot itself. The transmission line is the global logistics train of ships, trains, and trucks that transport the robot to its destination. And the result (i.e. a nice, cool breeze from your fan) is the work the robot does here on the other side of the world, with the capital owners poketing the difference. Tele-Labor.

This is a metaphor, but it is more than just a mere metaphor. For just as electrical currents can only be generated in the first place by “arbitraging” the stored-up chemical energy in coal or some other fuel, it is these very fuels which allow the global logistics train to actually function as well. Thus we have a second component in answer to the question of why automation seems profitable: leveraging the energy of fossil fuels.

The third component in profitable automation is, as has been mentioned, fiat currency and associated financial manipulations, which pull future damand into the present while hiding the true cost of “innovation” within a sea of socialized (i.e. dispersed, high entropy) debt.

Tele-labor, fossil fuels, and financialization make automation appear profitable, but in reality it is not so. This is not to say that certain tasks cannot and have not been successfully automated; we all know that they have. But we have reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to automation. Robotic burger flippers are not going to enhance our style of life the same way that a Henry Ford factory cranking out Model Ts day and night benefitted both the country and his employees. The kind of automation we’re looking at now is simply a nihilistic dead end that will briefly benefit the 1% at the expense of ruining the economy and the culture. Remember, slave labor can only be arbitraged so far. It is finite in supply and difficult to control. Peak Debt has already been reached. The future does not lie in building more robots. The future lies in identifying which things are worth doing in the first place.

Treat the workers well had nothing to do with creating a market for the product, as many morons claim.

The market was already there. The profits would have flowed regardless of whether Ford did or did not choose to recognise the people making the products, and treat them well.

He chose to do so.

Stark contrast to Engels, co-founder of Marxism, a factory owner, I have never read that he had any interest in treating his proles well, so must assume that, while spouting off on various lines, he treated his workers like dirt.

You all overlook the ludite opton. The Amish rejected new technology and now thrive compared to the english farmers. Not only are they economically better off, their demographics are better and theyve preserved their culture in the face of modernism. That was no mean feat.

The three states with the biggest Amish numbers (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana) have a combined average population density of 243.4/sq.mi.
Land for all?
If England’s current density of 1052.7/sq.mi., some 53 million, was reduced to that of the “Amish States” it would have 12,257,137 people, pretty much in line with its historical carrying capacity (complete with periodic famines).
What are you going to do with 40-odd million excess peasant farmers?
Short of an apocalypse, you just can’t get there from here.

If England’s current density of 1052.7/sq.mi., some 53 million, was reduced to that of the “Amish States” it would have 12,257,137 people, pretty much in line with its historical carrying capacity (complete with periodic famines).

With modern agricultural techniques and crop varieties, England's carrying capacity is well in excess of the current population.

Good article, Fred. I've been asking a lot of these same questions myself. The hype on robots is overblown, the problem is knowing how much overblown. We also have an over emphasis on college that ignores the good living people can have in the Trades. Robots will not be replacing plumbers and electricians anytime soon. Nor riggers, pipe-fitters and welders. Even so, sending our manufacturing across our borders was always a dumbass idea. We created the semiconductor industry here in the US. Now we don't even make the machines required to manufacture semiconductors. That is just stupid beyond belief. The globalists have sold us out. They are traitors and they should be held accountable.

We've allowed the unions and the federal mafia to destroy our industries and take over what remains so it can control us. We used to have a commercial shipping industry until the maritime unions destroyed ti with government help. Now we only build warships. We only have one company building commercial airplanes. We used to have 3. The others have consolidated and now build only for the military.

I can tell you what the future holds if we continue as we are; expansive poverty, the government dole, and endless wars created by the government to kill off large portions of the population so the elites don't have to worry about a revolution. Maybe the grubers rise up and kill them before that comes about. It would take their worries about the future away and it is the right thing to do which is probably why it will never happen in this banana republic.

Agree with most of what you say, but welding on vehicle assembly lines was among the earliest and most successful applications of industrial robots, and that started long ago.

For Fred,

If you believe this, I’d like to sell you stock in my venture to make radioactive dog-food on Mars.

Beautiful way to avoid the ‘bridge’ cliche.

A point I arrived at by myself many years ago is that, while robots may be more capital-efficient than humans at some tasks that involve mechanical action, swivelling to make welds, moving loads, &c., humans are far more energy-efficient.

Robots are thus very bad for the environment, even excepting the resources to make them (where Tesla vehicles also fail, on energy efficiency, too).

For other OPs who speak of overpopulation, I agree 100%, but since a UN population conference in the very late 70s or early 80s, everyone is supposed to ignore that point, because the delegates from places with mullahs and many of those with witch doctors claimed that birth control is wacist.

The situation is hopeless. Look at photos of the Earth from space in the late 60s and early 70s, and compare with those now.

Some populations are clearly locust-like.

I own three robots, all toys. One an ersatz insect that can be set on wheels or insect legs, one that ‘converses’ after you clap your hands and address it (both Japanese), and a toy car, made in China, which has a microcontroller, but is basically the same as the ‘bump into things and reverse’ toys that were based on simple electronic switches … but it plays inane Chinese techno music at the same time, which can be fun.

It is possible to program the insectoid to be interesting in a pen with the car, or on free range by itself.

Care (aged, handicapped) robots are a major locus of research in Japan, mainly to avoid being swamped by alien people.

On the sex-robot theme, only seen it once, but the U.S. movie Cherry 2000 is old yet has its good points. Not a very serious work, but fun.

You have a good point. Have had courses in welding, arc and oxy-acetylene, cutting and welding, no expert, but am grateful to have had the experience, so I do understand what you are saying.

The industrial robots only work with the pieces set just so, and only on the most basic seam and spot welding, although I am sure they outdo any human on programmed or 'trained' fixed patterns for cutting, likewise most humans on uniformity of seam. As you say, only given the provision of inflexible conditions.

Still, they eliminated many thousands of jobs many years ago.

I particularly enjoyed arc, dangerous voltage, temperatures, light, quite a sensation, as a learner, it felt like being a follower of Vulcan. My seam welds were alright, pretty smooth.

Actually, when I think of the sputtering effect, doubt that a programmed robot would necessarily do a better job.

I feel reasonably certain some form of the Guaranteed Income will be enacted. There will be jostling about as the perpetually-privileged class finds itself pressured by new entrants from the former "We Work for a Living" class. That means negroes and mexicans, already chronically pissed-off at the injustice of their station, will be agitating about white people getting handouts as big as theirs, and healthcare and free school lunches.

What no one points out any more -- for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide -- is that the problem is overpopulation. Has been for 50 years, and worsens daily. Eventually, everybody cannot be fed and housed adequately because there simply will not be adequate resources. And then, the house of cards collapses. Famine, pestilence, war, death ... the usual.

All activities of "civilization" seem to be little more than feeble efforts to postpone the inevitable. And to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.

There is, of course, no arguing with the contention that population is becoming a significant problem. However, it’s as much a problem of distribution as of finite resources. There is no doubt that a fairer distribution would go a some way to settling down social instabilities.

There is no doubt that a fairer distribution would go a some way to settling down social instabilities.

Game over, in that case, for those domiciled outside of the Tropics, particularly those evolved/acculturated to Northern (and to a lesser degree) Southern environments above or below the 37th parallel.The demands will be literally insatiable, and endless. Look at what happened to St Bob of Geldof's sickeningly self-regarding and misguided experiment in social engineering in North-East Africa. Save a million, starve ten million twenty years down the track. Result!

r-selected grasshopper groups will expand to fill the (currently) available feeding and temporary comfort amassed by the Northern ants, who by dint of painfully learned K-selection will have had the commonsense to restrict their offspring to a number about replacement. Less than that which will exhaust the periodically variable stores and harvests, and which will theoretically provide a better-than-squalid, desperate, r-selected existence for those children, enabling them to survive the climate. Therefore, according to "equalising" logic, the Northerners have more stuff, including resources and "environment". And fewer children to provide for. The greedy so-and-so's. Strip them of it ruthlessly, after all, it's not as though real poor people have the luxury of winter heating and fuel bills to pay ... so what if the Northerners have only one crop a year, if they're lucky?That is only ever going to go one way. A global "Haiti" zone around the middle of the planet, and maybe a few furtive, extremely hardy and ferocious hunter/foragers flitting around the sub-Polar forests and seas.

Fair distribution of resources has been tried in all the former socialist countries and not many of them are still in existence today. Even if we somehow managed to implement fair distribution in all the countries of the world it would not solve the problem of ever increasing population vis-a-vis finite natural resources. Most of the people in Third World countries seem to be completely oblivious to the fact.

In my field, the effects of technology has been very positive. The cost reduction and productivity increases have opened up new markets for us that originally were too expensive or just technologically impossible. Repetitive and time consuming tasks have been reduced or completely eliminated. This has been a boon for myself and fellow engineers allowing us to earn a good income.

However, I see doom for a lot of jobs we associate with. For example: building management systems (BMS) which run the HVAC systems. What used to require a small team of people in each building is now going to where you will have a small team of people monitoring hundreds of buildings. There will still be field technicians, but with the monitoring and troubling shooting automated, you will need a lot fewer of them.

If you can handle jobs that generally require 120+ IQ, chances are, you will remain employed. The productivity increases will drive the cost of consumer goods down, making your life better. If you are stuck in the world of manual and repetitive labor, your days of finding employment are numbered.

If you are stuck in the world of manual and repetitive labor, your days of finding employment are numbered.

People without incomes, security or even a useful function in society don't need housing or consumption that they can't pay for. Your options, as noble Galtistas, are to enslave them for your own amusement, or bulldoze them into pits. Too dangerous to leave them running wild.
Oh dear, seems there are now so many spare houses and manufactured goods, we don't need engineers and builders anymore. Well, at least for a few decades. Bye, 120+ IQ guys, guess you weren't part of the 0.01% all along ...

There is, of course, no arguing with the contention that population is becoming a significant problem. However, it's as much a problem of distribution as of finite resources. There is no doubt that a fairer distribution would go a some way to settling down social instabilities.

There is no doubt that a fairer distribution would go a some way to settling down social instabilities.

Game over, in that case, for those domiciled outside of the Tropics, particularly those evolved/acculturated to Northern (and to a lesser degree) Southern environments above or below the 37th parallel.
The demands will be literally insatiable, and endless. Look at what happened to St Bob of Geldof’s sickeningly self-regarding and misguided experiment in social engineering in North-East Africa. Save a million, starve ten million twenty years down the track. Result!

r-selected grasshopper groups will expand to fill the (currently) available feeding and temporary comfort amassed by the Northern ants, who by dint of painfully learned K-selection will have had the commonsense to restrict their offspring to a number about replacement. Less than that which will exhaust the periodically variable stores and harvests, and which will theoretically provide a better-than-squalid, desperate, r-selected existence for those children, enabling them to survive the climate.
Therefore, according to “equalising” logic, the Northerners have more stuff, including resources and “environment”. And fewer children to provide for. The greedy so-and-so’s. Strip them of it ruthlessly, after all, it’s not as though real poor people have the luxury of winter heating and fuel bills to pay … so what if the Northerners have only one crop a year, if they’re lucky?
That is only ever going to go one way. A global “Haiti” zone around the middle of the planet, and maybe a few furtive, extremely hardy and ferocious hunter/foragers flitting around the sub-Polar forests and seas.

True, Che, but a lot of welding is not actually done on an assembly line and isn't automated yet as in ship building.

woodNfish,

You have a good point. Have had courses in welding, arc and oxy-acetylene, cutting and welding, no expert, but am grateful to have had the experience, so I do understand what you are saying.

The industrial robots only work with the pieces set just so, and only on the most basic seam and spot welding, although I am sure they outdo any human on programmed or ‘trained’ fixed patterns for cutting, likewise most humans on uniformity of seam. As you say, only given the provision of inflexible conditions.

Still, they eliminated many thousands of jobs many years ago.

I particularly enjoyed arc, dangerous voltage, temperatures, light, quite a sensation, as a learner, it felt like being a follower of Vulcan. My seam welds were alright, pretty smooth.

Actually, when I think of the sputtering effect, doubt that a programmed robot would necessarily do a better job.

In my field, the effects of technology has been very positive. The cost reduction and productivity increases have opened up new markets for us that originally were too expensive or just technologically impossible. Repetitive and time consuming tasks have been reduced or completely eliminated. This has been a boon for myself and fellow engineers allowing us to earn a good income.

However, I see doom for a lot of jobs we associate with. For example: building management systems (BMS) which run the HVAC systems. What used to require a small team of people in each building is now going to where you will have a small team of people monitoring hundreds of buildings. There will still be field technicians, but with the monitoring and troubling shooting automated, you will need a lot fewer of them.

If you can handle jobs that generally require 120+ IQ, chances are, you will remain employed. The productivity increases will drive the cost of consumer goods down, making your life better. If you are stuck in the world of manual and repetitive labor, your days of finding employment are numbered.

I have no idea what the solution to this situation will be.

If you are stuck in the world of manual and repetitive labor, your days of finding employment are numbered.

People without incomes, security or even a useful function in society don’t need housing or consumption that they can’t pay for. Your options, as noble Galtistas, are to enslave them for your own amusement, or bulldoze them into pits. Too dangerous to leave them running wild.
Oh dear, seems there are now so many spare houses and manufactured goods, we don’t need engineers and builders anymore. Well, at least for a few decades. Bye, 120+ IQ guys, guess you weren’t part of the 0.01% all along …

There is, of course, no arguing with the contention that population is becoming a significant problem. However, it's as much a problem of distribution as of finite resources. There is no doubt that a fairer distribution would go a some way to settling down social instabilities.

Fair distribution of resources has been tried in all the former socialist countries and not many of them are still in existence today. Even if we somehow managed to implement fair distribution in all the countries of the world it would not solve the problem of ever increasing population vis-a-vis finite natural resources. Most of the people in Third World countries seem to be completely oblivious to the fact.

Most of the people in Third World countries seem to be completely oblivious to the fact.

Most of the people in Third World countries think the world is flat and centered on their village with a thin peripheral zone, more than a day’s walk off in all directions, inhabited by ghosts and demons that can only be appeased by witchcraft and sacrifice.
Usually in pursuit of all the Wealth they can now see, via modern communications, unaccountably lying around on the ground unguarded in the White countries. And they want their “fair share”. They have absolutely no clue as to how it arrived there, and don’t particularly care. History is an alien concept to them. They prefer fairy-stories.

(disclaimer: my kid bro married a Hilltribe woman (and the rest of the clan, financially!) They literally think like this. They are also fantastically lazy, ineducable, opium-sodden, drunken (moonshine), dishonest, insanely rayciss bastards, and robbers of travellers, and always have been. They’d be dead meat, in an industrial economy. Or even a half-decent agrarian one).

I am an automation/control system integrator. I design, program, and integrate automation systems that include PLC, SCADA/HMI, and robots such as these. I am very motivated to do my work and have the greatest enthusiasm for creating the future.

As I frequently say, when you actually sit down and think about the whole process from beginning to end, a robot is a rather Rube Goldberg way of accomplishing a simple task. There's a lot of R&D, money, precision engineering, and software that goes into making a successful automation process. How does all of this end up being cheaper than merely hiring a person to perform the same task? Well, part of the answer is that the software and engineering components have already been outsourced to Asia and are produced by people making paltry wages. In effect, automation is simply another way to arbitrage the slave labor of the Third World. A robot manufactured in China is "Tele-Labor." They do the work over there and, by virtue of a long-distance logistics train, we reap the benefits over here.

It's very similar to how electricity works. You can think of an electrical current as "moving magnatism." If you place like poles of two bar magnets together they will repel each other. If you firmly grasp one of the magnets in your hand, you can push around the other magnet around without actually touching it. That is the same principle behind, say, your ceiling fan. Down at the power plant a coal furnace heats up the water in a boiler to produce steam, which is then vented through a turbine to turn a shaft. Attached to that shaft is rotor consisting of some very large, heavy, powerful magnets, situated inside an enormous coil of wire. The rotating magnets induce a current in the coil, which the transmission lines carry to your house. Then the same process occurs in reverse, as the current forces the magnets in your ceiling fan's electric motor to rotate. Looked at in the round, the magnets at the power plant are actuall pushing around the magnets in your fan; the force is simply mediated by the transmission mechanism of the elctrical grid.

"Tele-Labor" is a sort of cyborg electricity: half man, half machine. The "power plant" is the low-wage Chinese laborers. The electric current is the robot itself. The transmission line is the global logistics train of ships, trains, and trucks that transport the robot to its destination. And the result (i.e. a nice, cool breeze from your fan) is the work the robot does here on the other side of the world, with the capital owners poketing the difference. Tele-Labor.

This is a metaphor, but it is more than just a mere metaphor. For just as electrical currents can only be generated in the first place by "arbitraging" the stored-up chemical energy in coal or some other fuel, it is these very fuels which allow the global logistics train to actually function as well. Thus we have a second component in answer to the question of why automation seems profitable: leveraging the energy of fossil fuels.

The third component in profitable automation is, as has been mentioned, fiat currency and associated financial manipulations, which pull future damand into the present while hiding the true cost of "innovation" within a sea of socialized (i.e. dispersed, high entropy) debt.

Tele-labor, fossil fuels, and financialization make automation appear profitable, but in reality it is not so. This is not to say that certain tasks cannot and have not been successfully automated; we all know that they have. But we have reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to automation. Robotic burger flippers are not going to enhance our style of life the same way that a Henry Ford factory cranking out Model Ts day and night benefitted both the country and his employees. The kind of automation we're looking at now is simply a nihilistic dead end that will briefly benefit the 1% at the expense of ruining the economy and the culture. Remember, slave labor can only be arbitraged so far. It is finite in supply and difficult to control. Peak Debt has already been reached. The future does not lie in building more robots. The future lies in identifying which things are worth doing in the first place.

Henry Ford was a genius.

Treat the workers well had nothing to do with creating a market for the product, as many morons claim.

The market was already there. The profits would have flowed regardless of whether Ford did or did not choose to recognise the people making the products, and treat them well.

He chose to do so.

Stark contrast to Engels, co-founder of Marxism, a factory owner, I have never read that he had any interest in treating his proles well, so must assume that, while spouting off on various lines, he treated his workers like dirt.

Stark contrast to Engels, co-founder of Marxism, a factory owner, I have never read that he had any interest in treating his proles well, so must assume that, while spouting off on various lines, he treated his workers like dirt.

Engels was never a factory owner. He worked in a factory owned by his father and eventually became a partner. Engels retired his position five years later. Since you have never read about his mistreating the employees how did you conclude he treated them like dirt. Turning assumptions into facts can distort your perception of the world and in this particular case made your whole claim invalid.

must assume that, while spouting off on various lines, he treated his workers like dirt

Not quite like dirt, more like a sexual and domestic finger-buffet. When he wasn’t out on the lash with his dominating parasite Karly-boy, smashing gas lamps and fondling the skeletal jaws of night-time street-urchins (generally of Irish and therefore officially, anthropologically, of sub-human descent, in the 1840s) after a few pints, he was back-scuttling his Scots-Irish concubine and skivvy Mary Burns, recruited as a teen slum-dweller from his father’s mill at Ermen & Engels to serve in his unofficial lodgings a few miles from his butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-idealistic-mouth “confirmed bachelor’s” rented quarters, in I think Ardwick.
Fellow never did a day’s work in his life, just a bit of sheltered employment counting-house dilettantery for Papa until he croaked (having previously bought out the I think deceased Ermen interest; free money for life, wahay for Capitalism!)
The mill was a bit further down Chapel Street from my great-grandad’s pub, more towards St Mary Eccles, where every known marriage in one side of my family until the building of relief chapels and extra CofE churches in the later C19th took place. Most of the women were cotton-mill workers like young Mary, all the men colliers, dead men walking and consequently not to be trifled with, unlike the immigrant girls and their parents (who they cordially and rationally detested, just like now, and for the same reasons). When Mary died of whatever Victorian ailment, he immediately jumped on her older sister, if indeed it hadn’t been a threesome all along. Or foursome, etc. With the excuse that he had to tap the rich fool up for a bit more cash, since he wasn’t working either.

Weird self-edit there: should have “With his autistic mate Karl, whenever he (Karl) could get away from his posh mad wife and kids.” after “threesome all along”.
This posthumous slander game is pretty damn difficult, you know.

There’s another aspect of robots beyond productivity. They’re costly. Of course the cost can be amortized over the machine’s useful life. But the upfront purchase money is still needed.
Workers are current expenses paid from cash flow. Robots are capital costs paid for by financing. To cut to the chase, this means that rich suppliers of capital loans skim off the funds that previously were paid to workers. The 1% phenomenon.

So where will the funding come from for the government check to all? Berny Tax the 1%? But where will the capital come from for robots then? Where’s Stalin and a good Five Year Plan when you need him?

Okay, you're against corruption, that means you're against human nature. The attacks on unions are actually attacks on the American working man by those who want to reduce him to a 3rd world peon. Fix management corruption, fix ownership corruption, fix government corruption, then come back and talk about union corruption. How many bankers went to jail for their corruption in the last economic crisis? Our next president is one of the most corrupt women to walk the earth, but you want to bust the unions which will only result in lower wages and benefits for workers. The problem isn't the unions, the problem is poor, corrupt management and I don't see that ever changing.

“the problem is poor, corrupt management”… on the part of union management, the political go betweens, and corporate elites. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Most of the people in Third World countries seem to be completely oblivious to the fact.

Most of the people in Third World countries think the world is flat and centered on their village with a thin peripheral zone, more than a day's walk off in all directions, inhabited by ghosts and demons that can only be appeased by witchcraft and sacrifice.
Usually in pursuit of all the Wealth they can now see, via modern communications, unaccountably lying around on the ground unguarded in the White countries. And they want their "fair share". They have absolutely no clue as to how it arrived there, and don't particularly care. History is an alien concept to them. They prefer fairy-stories.

(disclaimer: my kid bro married a Hilltribe woman (and the rest of the clan, financially!) They literally think like this. They are also fantastically lazy, ineducable, opium-sodden, drunken (moonshine), dishonest, insanely rayciss bastards, and robbers of travellers, and always have been. They'd be dead meat, in an industrial economy. Or even a half-decent agrarian one).

They are also fantastically lazy, ineducable, opium-sodden, drunken (moonshine), dishonest, insanely rayciss bastards, and robbers of travellers, and always have been.

Like the bulk of humanity for the last 200,000 years. Some say we are evolving a bit, and they have pretty good arguments, but we have a long way to go.

It’s a complex subject. I’d write more, but I’m too lazy to do it and want to go get some beer.

This explains why the New York Times employs Paul Krugman: to ensure that no one understands how rapidly we approach economic Armageddon.

Fred makes the mistake, however, which no good journalist should make, of answering the question he raises; namely, how’s it all gonna end?

In my view, this is where Fred goes wrong.

The elite will not tolerate a large population of useless eaters for long. They will destroy them.

At present they destroy them by stealth, allowing them to rot, immersed in a trash culture, as they feed off the crumbs from the bankers’ tables. The result? premature death from obesity, drug use, despair, and a below replacement fertility rate.

Paradoxically, the Western elites, while genociding their own people, encouraging the mass influx of immigrants. There is an explanation for this, however. The objectives are: (1) to cheapen labor and thus raise corporate profits, (2) destroy the cohesion of the nation state, thereby creating the conditions for global governance controlled by little more than a handful of murderous financiers, (3) to replace the indigenous working class of below average energy, intelligence and initiative with people who, by virtue of their above-average energy, intelligence, and initiative, have migrated to where their economic opportunity is greater than in their place of birth, (4) replace the indigenous people of the West with immigrants from societies where silly notions about human rights, equality before the law and all that other Western liberal rubbish holds no sway.

Eventually, large tracts of the Earth’s habitable area will be occupied by populations depleted of their most talented individuals and of no use whatever to the global elite. These folks the elite will deal with by one means or another: a virus, a bacterium, a famine, a nuclear winter, who knows or really cares. These people will simply disappear, and large tracts of the Earth will resume their proper role as places for extremely rich people with the most polished good manners to hunt tigers, elephants, and run thousand-square-mile ranches worked by whatever remnants of the original population happen to remain.

Massive change of this nature must be discovered, organically. Attempts to centrally manage it will fail, fail, fail, fail...... until failure is no longer an option.

Frankly, I envision H.G. Wells' Time Machine, except the Eloi will be stupid, fat, ugly, bovine mental defectives while the Morlocks will be beautiful, intelligent, graceful and technologically gifted.

The future will either be stripped of intelligent people who can create the high technology of the present and near-future, or they will simply leave the masses of dull-witted people behind.

The reality is that the cutoff for the highly productive is increasingly above the entrance level for MENSA. I think it's probably nearing 140 IQ, or only about 1 in 250 Caucasians.

This will exacerbate ENVY, especially racial envy (which is the basis for the anti-racism cult.) One real risk will be a Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge style pogrom on the educated and intelligent. Essentially no one living today has any idea how dependent they are upon the core of bright people providing all the goodies, and how crushing will be the poverty should their envy yield that kind of barbarism.

“…Essentially no one living today has any idea how dependent they are upon the core of bright people providing all the goodies, and how crushing will be the poverty should their envy yield that kind of barbarism.”

The thing is, that up to this point, nature has required a polyglot of people just to produce one verifiable bumptious cretin as yourself.

I feel reasonably certain some form of the Guaranteed Income will be enacted. There will be jostling about as the perpetually-privileged class finds itself pressured by new entrants from the former "We Work for a Living" class. That means negroes and mexicans, already chronically pissed-off at the injustice of their station, will be agitating about white people getting handouts as big as theirs, and healthcare and free school lunches.

What no one points out any more -- for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide -- is that the problem is overpopulation. Has been for 50 years, and worsens daily. Eventually, everybody cannot be fed and housed adequately because there simply will not be adequate resources. And then, the house of cards collapses. Famine, pestilence, war, death ... the usual.

All activities of "civilization" seem to be little more than feeble efforts to postpone the inevitable. And to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I’m an unrepentant, unreconstructed Malthusian. I believe that the human population should have topped-out at somewhere between one- and two-billion. When the Industrial Revolution began circa 1800 the population was about one-billion, so we know that the Earth can support that many people without coal. When the Petroleum Age began circa 1901 (Spindletop) the population was about two-billion, so we know that the Earth can support that many people without oil or natural gas. Granted, in both cases people were “supported” in a very minimal sense; none of us would want to live that way. Less than one-hundred years ago the richest man alive didn’t have air-conditioning or access to antibiotics and was constantly sweating the next Polio-epidemic, not to mention Diphtheria, Typhus, the Flu, etc.

If it could be demonstrated that we will always be able to scrape together 1,800 calories per person per day, no matter how large the population gets, would that allay my fears? No, because there are other issues like depletion of nonrenewable resources, habitat-destruction and the (unnecessary) extinction of species, mass migrations of people and quality-of-life issues.

I've been hearing this for five decades and it is possible to find similar worries going back to the onset of the industrial revolution. In short, yawn.

If you’ve been around to listen to this for 5 decades, then you’re past the point of it affecting your employement/income.

But I’m willing to bet that it’s going to affect your grandchildren / great grandchildren, etc. You’re free to disagree, but there are a couple of dynamics going on now that weren’t in place in years past: 1 – overwhelming amounts of regulations that come with hiring individuals, 2- rising minimum wage. Many companies are doing the math and can see that $100k robot is a better deal than a $15/hr employee.

Employees create a great deal of uncertainty for owners – how much work will get done, who will call in sick, who will take disability, who will sue for harassment, who will just screw up all the time. Hmm, can you think of anything that might be a good replacement?

This explains why the New York Times employs Paul Krugman: to ensure that no one understands how rapidly we approach economic Armageddon.

Fred makes the mistake, however, which no good journalist should make, of answering the question he raises; namely, how's it all gonna end?

In my view, this is where Fred goes wrong.

The elite will not tolerate a large population of useless eaters for long. They will destroy them.

At present they destroy them by stealth, allowing them to rot, immersed in a trash culture, as they feed off the crumbs from the bankers' tables. The result? premature death from obesity, drug use, despair, and a below replacement fertility rate.

Paradoxically, the Western elites, while genociding their own people, encouraging the mass influx of immigrants. There is an explanation for this, however. The objectives are: (1) to cheapen labor and thus raise corporate profits, (2) destroy the cohesion of the nation state, thereby creating the conditions for global governance controlled by little more than a handful of murderous financiers, (3) to replace the indigenous working class of below average energy, intelligence and initiative with people who, by virtue of their above-average energy, intelligence, and initiative, have migrated to where their economic opportunity is greater than in their place of birth, (4) replace the indigenous people of the West with immigrants from societies where silly notions about human rights, equality before the law and all that other Western liberal rubbish holds no sway.

Eventually, large tracts of the Earth's habitable area will be occupied by populations depleted of their most talented individuals and of no use whatever to the global elite. These folks the elite will deal with by one means or another: a virus, a bacterium, a famine, a nuclear winter, who knows or really cares. These people will simply disappear, and large tracts of the Earth will resume their proper role as places for extremely rich people with the most polished good manners to hunt tigers, elephants, and run thousand-square-mile ranches worked by whatever remnants of the original population happen to remain.

"the problem is poor, corrupt management"... on the part of union management, the political go betweens, and corporate elites. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

The head of my construction labors union back then was also head of the Chicago Southside Mafia Creu. It was just a summer job so I didn’t worry about mu retirement fund,

Some say guaranteed income is the plan. As welfare programs in all their forms become more numerous the solution will be to give everyone a stipend and that’s all. The right will sell it as market-based reform. The left will call it social justice. And we will all live together happily ever after.

“The obvious solution, one I think inevitable within a few decades unless we want a revolution, is a guaranteed minimum income, enough to live on comfortably, for everyone.”

And with that sentence, Fred just contradicted his entire article. If there’s no money coming into Uncle Sam’s coffers, due to fewer and fewer jobs being created, and other accounting finagling to keep profits seemingly low, then how exactly is there going to be tons of money left over to subsidize the masses of millions of people without jobs due to robotics?

See? It falls apart and won’t work anyway. So on that level people are gonna get screwed.

There’s another aspect of robots beyond productivity. They’re costly. Of course the cost can be amortized over the machine’s useful life. But the upfront purchase money is still needed.
Workers are current expenses paid from cash flow. Robots are capital costs paid for by financing. To cut to the chase, this means that rich suppliers of capital loans skim off the funds that previously were paid to workers. The 1% phenomenon.

So where will the funding come from for the government check to all? Berny Tax the 1%? But where will the capital come from for robots then? Where’s Stalin and a good Five Year Plan when you need him?

I believe the argument here is that robots are so productive they will both build our stuff and fund our welfare state… until the usual cohorts breed so many people that even this model breaks down.

This explains why the New York Times employs Paul Krugman: to ensure that no one understands how rapidly we approach economic Armageddon.

Fred makes the mistake, however, which no good journalist should make, of answering the question he raises; namely, how's it all gonna end?

In my view, this is where Fred goes wrong.

The elite will not tolerate a large population of useless eaters for long. They will destroy them.

At present they destroy them by stealth, allowing them to rot, immersed in a trash culture, as they feed off the crumbs from the bankers' tables. The result? premature death from obesity, drug use, despair, and a below replacement fertility rate.

Paradoxically, the Western elites, while genociding their own people, encouraging the mass influx of immigrants. There is an explanation for this, however. The objectives are: (1) to cheapen labor and thus raise corporate profits, (2) destroy the cohesion of the nation state, thereby creating the conditions for global governance controlled by little more than a handful of murderous financiers, (3) to replace the indigenous working class of below average energy, intelligence and initiative with people who, by virtue of their above-average energy, intelligence, and initiative, have migrated to where their economic opportunity is greater than in their place of birth, (4) replace the indigenous people of the West with immigrants from societies where silly notions about human rights, equality before the law and all that other Western liberal rubbish holds no sway.

Eventually, large tracts of the Earth's habitable area will be occupied by populations depleted of their most talented individuals and of no use whatever to the global elite. These folks the elite will deal with by one means or another: a virus, a bacterium, a famine, a nuclear winter, who knows or really cares. These people will simply disappear, and large tracts of the Earth will resume their proper role as places for extremely rich people with the most polished good manners to hunt tigers, elephants, and run thousand-square-mile ranches worked by whatever remnants of the original population happen to remain.

Remarkable that we can see what’s coming, but we can’t do anything about it. It is like a disease we can’t cure, or a machine too complicated to fix.

It is like a disease we can’t cure, or a machine too complicated to fix.

Yes, a bit of both. The disease we cannot cure stems from the fact that the elite has the power, and we do not.

And this is not the power of a bunch of knights in armor trashing a mob of angry peasants armed with pitch forks. It is the power of people who can eavesdrop on every phone call, scan every email, and who can destroy you, your family, your city or your country in a multitude of ways, covert or overt. That's pretty incurable.

There's also the problem of an evolving civilization that is so complex that no one really understands what's coming next or can, therefore, know what's best to do for us, the people, or them, the elite. Which means there's scope here for the imaginative revision of elite plans.

What's really gone wrong between the classes is that they are no longer of one family. At one time, the poor raised few children to adulthood, due to poor housing, inadequate nutrition, etc. The rich, on the other hand, were able to more than replace their own numbers. Thus the rich were downward mobile, replacing the reproductive deficit of the poor with their own surplus progeny. This meant that the rich had poor relatives and viewed the poor with a degree of sympathy, while the poor had rich relatives and viewed the rich with a degree of respect. Hence there was, in every country, one nation.

Since the industrial revolution the relationship between rich and poor has been radically altered. The poor, fed on cheap grain from the New World, and clothed with cheap garments from the cotton spinning and weaving mills of Manchester, multiplied freely. Thus emerged Disreali's two nations:

...between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.

But the industrial proletariat was tolerated because it worked the industrial machine, and because it provided the mass of men ready to lay down their lives for their country in times of war.

But now automation and advanced tech have eliminated the need for the mass man. Robots are taking over the workplace, and all that the military require to operate their stupendously expensive hardware are a few highly trained technicians.

So how can this end other than badly for the mass of mankind?

In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now.

(The claim that the lower socio-economic classes outbreed the upper socio-economic classes may seem inconsistent with the claim that the Western nations are being genocided by a combination of suppressed fertility and mass replacement immigration. But the fact is that all classes in the Western world have a below replacement fertility*, but those with the most education, and in general the highest IQ's, i.e., the elite, have the lowest fertility of all.)

A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.

With such a policy, the Western nations would once again be unified, and would experience the benefits of positive selection for intelligence, responsibility, education, business competence, etc., while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal. The intelligence profile of the population could also be adjusted by modification of breeding incentives to insure a good fit between individual capabilities and employment opportunities.

—* This claim may be subject to revision on the basis of further research!

I'm an unrepentant, unreconstructed Malthusian. I believe that the human population should have topped-out at somewhere between one- and two-billion. When the Industrial Revolution began circa 1800 the population was about one-billion, so we know that the Earth can support that many people without coal. When the Petroleum Age began circa 1901 (Spindletop) the population was about two-billion, so we know that the Earth can support that many people without oil or natural gas. Granted, in both cases people were "supported" in a very minimal sense; none of us would want to live that way. Less than one-hundred years ago the richest man alive didn't have air-conditioning or access to antibiotics and was constantly sweating the next Polio-epidemic, not to mention Diphtheria, Typhus, the Flu, etc.

If it could be demonstrated that we will always be able to scrape together 1,800 calories per person per day, no matter how large the population gets, would that allay my fears? No, because there are other issues like depletion of nonrenewable resources, habitat-destruction and the (unnecessary) extinction of species, mass migrations of people and quality-of-life issues.

I’m an unrepentant, unreconstructed Malthusian.

There was hope when modern wealth brought down fertility among the thoughtful.

But these same thoughtful people have a pathological need to share, and thus the no-border world with modern tech has assured us that the womb will crush us under the weight of human flesh.

Some say guaranteed income is the plan. As welfare programs in all their forms become more numerous the solution will be to give everyone a stipend and that's all. The right will sell it as market-based reform. The left will call it social justice. And we will all live together happily ever after.

I repeat myself but haven’t seen it in this thread yet: GMI will be coupled with sterilization after two, one, or no kids depending on your social-biological profile.

Remarkable that we can see what's coming, but we can't do anything about it. It is like a disease we can't cure, or a machine too complicated to fix.

It is like a disease we can’t cure, or a machine too complicated to fix.

Yes, a bit of both. The disease we cannot cure stems from the fact that the elite has the power, and we do not.

And this is not the power of a bunch of knights in armor trashing a mob of angry peasants armed with pitch forks. It is the power of people who can eavesdrop on every phone call, scan every email, and who can destroy you, your family, your city or your country in a multitude of ways, covert or overt. That’s pretty incurable.

There’s also the problem of an evolving civilization that is so complex that no one really understands what’s coming next or can, therefore, know what’s best to do for us, the people, or them, the elite. Which means there’s scope here for the imaginative revision of elite plans.

What’s really gone wrong between the classes is that they are no longer of one family. At one time, the poor raised few children to adulthood, due to poor housing, inadequate nutrition, etc. The rich, on the other hand, were able to more than replace their own numbers. Thus the rich were downward mobile, replacing the reproductive deficit of the poor with their own surplus progeny. This meant that the rich had poor relatives and viewed the poor with a degree of sympathy, while the poor had rich relatives and viewed the rich with a degree of respect. Hence there was, in every country, one nation.

Since the industrial revolution the relationship between rich and poor has been radically altered. The poor, fed on cheap grain from the New World, and clothed with cheap garments from the cotton spinning and weaving mills of Manchester, multiplied freely. Thus emerged Disreali’s two nations:

…between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.

But the industrial proletariat was tolerated because it worked the industrial machine, and because it provided the mass of men ready to lay down their lives for their country in times of war.

But now automation and advanced tech have eliminated the need for the mass man. Robots are taking over the workplace, and all that the military require to operate their stupendously expensive hardware are a few highly trained technicians.

So how can this end other than badly for the mass of mankind?

In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now.

(The claim that the lower socio-economic classes outbreed the upper socio-economic classes may seem inconsistent with the claim that the Western nations are being genocided by a combination of suppressed fertility and mass replacement immigration. But the fact is that all classes in the Western world have a below replacement fertility*, but those with the most education, and in general the highest IQ’s, i.e., the elite, have the lowest fertility of all.)

A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.

With such a policy, the Western nations would once again be unified, and would experience the benefits of positive selection for intelligence, responsibility, education, business competence, etc., while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal. The intelligence profile of the population could also be adjusted by modification of breeding incentives to insure a good fit between individual capabilities and employment opportunities.

—
* This claim may be subject to revision on the basis of further research!

"In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now."

First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being "the West" or "western". Second, you are misusing the term "genocide". Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term. Third, you do realize that your own elitist views regarding the "common people", who are also WHITE, will not sit well with them, so how do you expect them to cater to your every whim?

"A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females."

How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation? Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate--whom you characterize as being "dumb, low information, degenerates"--or ruling "elites"?,? What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

"while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal."

Gently, ha! More like bludgeoning. Moreover, what population size to YOU is "optimal"? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

In my field, the effects of technology has been very positive. The cost reduction and productivity increases have opened up new markets for us that originally were too expensive or just technologically impossible. Repetitive and time consuming tasks have been reduced or completely eliminated. This has been a boon for myself and fellow engineers allowing us to earn a good income.

However, I see doom for a lot of jobs we associate with. For example: building management systems (BMS) which run the HVAC systems. What used to require a small team of people in each building is now going to where you will have a small team of people monitoring hundreds of buildings. There will still be field technicians, but with the monitoring and troubling shooting automated, you will need a lot fewer of them.

If you can handle jobs that generally require 120+ IQ, chances are, you will remain employed. The productivity increases will drive the cost of consumer goods down, making your life better. If you are stuck in the world of manual and repetitive labor, your days of finding employment are numbered.

I have no idea what the solution to this situation will be.

If you are stuck in the world of manual and repetitive labor, your days of finding employment are numbered.

a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.

If you lose the high-flying wellpaid job of your youth and early marriage, do some of your kids get retrospectively aborted? Maybe recycled to the elite as organ donors?

I was talking with my 10 year old daughter about this, discussing robots in fast food restaurants. After some thought, her comment was "But daddy, if robots do all the jobs, where will people work?" If only our politicians were as smart as 4th graders.

Not quite robots but payment kiosks with only a cook/servers have been common in Japan for years at ramen and curry shops

Interestingly the new cafeteria my large company just built has 7 food stations with kiosks for payment and no cashiers or cash

It is like a disease we can’t cure, or a machine too complicated to fix.

Yes, a bit of both. The disease we cannot cure stems from the fact that the elite has the power, and we do not.

And this is not the power of a bunch of knights in armor trashing a mob of angry peasants armed with pitch forks. It is the power of people who can eavesdrop on every phone call, scan every email, and who can destroy you, your family, your city or your country in a multitude of ways, covert or overt. That's pretty incurable.

There's also the problem of an evolving civilization that is so complex that no one really understands what's coming next or can, therefore, know what's best to do for us, the people, or them, the elite. Which means there's scope here for the imaginative revision of elite plans.

What's really gone wrong between the classes is that they are no longer of one family. At one time, the poor raised few children to adulthood, due to poor housing, inadequate nutrition, etc. The rich, on the other hand, were able to more than replace their own numbers. Thus the rich were downward mobile, replacing the reproductive deficit of the poor with their own surplus progeny. This meant that the rich had poor relatives and viewed the poor with a degree of sympathy, while the poor had rich relatives and viewed the rich with a degree of respect. Hence there was, in every country, one nation.

Since the industrial revolution the relationship between rich and poor has been radically altered. The poor, fed on cheap grain from the New World, and clothed with cheap garments from the cotton spinning and weaving mills of Manchester, multiplied freely. Thus emerged Disreali's two nations:

...between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.

But the industrial proletariat was tolerated because it worked the industrial machine, and because it provided the mass of men ready to lay down their lives for their country in times of war.

But now automation and advanced tech have eliminated the need for the mass man. Robots are taking over the workplace, and all that the military require to operate their stupendously expensive hardware are a few highly trained technicians.

So how can this end other than badly for the mass of mankind?

In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now.

(The claim that the lower socio-economic classes outbreed the upper socio-economic classes may seem inconsistent with the claim that the Western nations are being genocided by a combination of suppressed fertility and mass replacement immigration. But the fact is that all classes in the Western world have a below replacement fertility*, but those with the most education, and in general the highest IQ's, i.e., the elite, have the lowest fertility of all.)

A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.

With such a policy, the Western nations would once again be unified, and would experience the benefits of positive selection for intelligence, responsibility, education, business competence, etc., while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal. The intelligence profile of the population could also be adjusted by modification of breeding incentives to insure a good fit between individual capabilities and employment opportunities.

—* This claim may be subject to revision on the basis of further research!

“In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now.”

First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being “the West” or “western”. Second, you are misusing the term “genocide”. Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term. Third, you do realize that your own elitist views regarding the “common people”, who are also WHITE, will not sit well with them, so how do you expect them to cater to your every whim?

“A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.”

How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation? Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?,? What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

“while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal.”

Gently, ha! More like bludgeoning. Moreover, what population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Historically, Asian and Islamic nations have been regarded as East, while Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Latin America and the United States are regarded as West.

You say:

Second, you are misusing the term “genocide”. Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term.

Try not to shout, or use all caps for emphasis, it adds nothing to your argument.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus:

The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.

It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.

More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

So, yes, mass replacement immigration combined with repressed reproduction and enforced multiculturalism and political correctness does "equate to the term" genocide.

Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

First, you misquote me. I did not refer to the US electorate as "degenerates," although I did speak of the "more or less degenerate mass."

I think that is a fair and accurate characterization, though as a generalization it is certainly subject to many exceptions.

Degenerate means "having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline." By that measure, the mass of TV-watching, junk-food-guzzling, coke-snorting, hash-smoking, porn-addicted masses, would, I believe, be considered "more of less degenerate" by their forebears. The same is true of all Western nations.

Second, democracy in the West is a fraud, therefore the question of electoral support is irrelevant. The elite decide, the mass are then compelled to think in conformity, the means of compulsion including:

State-controlled K-to-early-middle-age education, with its mandatory components of multiculturalism and political correctness;

Unfree print and broadcast media, including book publishing and entertainment, controlled by a handful of like-minded corporations.

As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than "a goddam piece of paper."

You mean government regulation of citizen conduct as prescribed by legislators via the will of the people.

Regardless, you still haven't responded with specifics to my question. Who is promoting this policy? Where is the widespread support for this eugenics policy?

"particularly after the Tabula Rasa theory of human development crashes down in the next few years."

Yes, there have been advancements in the study of race and genetics the past decade, but even these experts caution against finding the Holy Grail that will destroy the nurturist positions. In other words, you are only speculating.

"In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now."

First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being "the West" or "western". Second, you are misusing the term "genocide". Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term. Third, you do realize that your own elitist views regarding the "common people", who are also WHITE, will not sit well with them, so how do you expect them to cater to your every whim?

"A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females."

How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation? Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate--whom you characterize as being "dumb, low information, degenerates"--or ruling "elites"?,? What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

"while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal."

Gently, ha! More like bludgeoning. Moreover, what population size to YOU is "optimal"? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You say:

First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being “the West” or “western”.

Who cares how Americans, white, black or khaki, characterize their civilization, if you can call it a civilization. I’d rather call it a byproduct of the commercial system.

Historically, Asian and Islamic nations have been regarded as East, while Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Latin America and the United States are regarded as West.

You say:

Second, you are misusing the term “genocide”. Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term.

Try not to shout, or use all caps for emphasis, it adds nothing to your argument.

The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus:

The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.

It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.

More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

So, yes, mass replacement immigration combined with repressed reproduction and enforced multiculturalism and political correctness does “equate to the term” genocide.

"Who cares how Americans, white, black or khaki, characterize their civilization, if you can call it a civilization."

Americans are decidedly caring about their civilization. You can label it differently, but it assuredly meets the criteria of civilization.

"I’d rather call it a byproduct of the commercial system."

Well, Western Civilization also meets that metric.

"For those who are more or less educated, Wikipedia provides a definition of “the West” consistent with my usage and the usage of most modern historians and political commentators"

That's not the issue here. The fact remains most Americans do not refer to their civilization as Western, but rather American.

"The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus"

You do realize that there a number of posters here who are not fond of Jews, correct? Your quotation only lends support to my contention. Lemkin admits that he is PERSONALLY adding criteria to an already well-established, clear-cut concept regarding mass killings.

Now, let's get back to the heart of the matter by addressing my points, rather than claim you responded to my inquiries.

You--“A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.”

Me--How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation?

Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

What population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now."

First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being "the West" or "western". Second, you are misusing the term "genocide". Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term. Third, you do realize that your own elitist views regarding the "common people", who are also WHITE, will not sit well with them, so how do you expect them to cater to your every whim?

"A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females."

How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation? Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate--whom you characterize as being "dumb, low information, degenerates"--or ruling "elites"?,? What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

"while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal."

Gently, ha! More like bludgeoning. Moreover, what population size to YOU is "optimal"? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Re: population policy

You say:

Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

First, you misquote me. I did not refer to the US electorate as “degenerates,” although I did speak of the “more or less degenerate mass.”

I think that is a fair and accurate characterization, though as a generalization it is certainly subject to many exceptions.

Degenerate means “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.” By that measure, the mass of TV-watching, junk-food-guzzling, coke-snorting, hash-smoking, porn-addicted masses, would, I believe, be considered “more of less degenerate” by their forebears. The same is true of all Western nations.

Second, democracy in the West is a fraud, therefore the question of electoral support is irrelevant. The elite decide, the mass are then compelled to think in conformity, the means of compulsion including:

State-controlled K-to-early-middle-age education, with its mandatory components of multiculturalism and political correctness;

Unfree print and broadcast media, including book publishing and entertainment, controlled by a handful of like-minded corporations.

"First, you misquote me. I did not refer to the US electorate as “degenerates,” although I did speak of the “more or less degenerate mass.”

There was no misquoting on my part. If you characterize a group as being "degenerate", in this case Americans, one is able to deduct that the individuals that constitute that group fit your description.

"I think that is a fair and accurate characterization, though as a generalization it is certainly subject to many exceptions."

Exactly, a generalization that may not be entirely accurate.

"Degenerate means “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.” By that measure, the mass of TV-watching, junk-food-guzzling, coke-snorting, hash-smoking, porn-addicted masses", would, I believe, be considered “more of less degenerate” by their forebears. The same is true of all Western nations."

(Spock brow) You are lumping together individual behaviors and stating unequivocally that the majority of people engage in said behaviors. That is illogical.

"Second, democracy in the West is a fraud, therefore the question of electoral support is irrelevant."

There is assuredly nothing fraudulent about representative democracy or the people, of their own volition, making political decisions reflective of their own ideologies.

"The elite decide, the mass are then compelled to think in conformity, the means of compulsion including""

In typical fashion, you give way too much credit to these "elites" and have too little faith in the "masses".

"State-controlled K-to-early-middle-age education, with its mandatory components of multiculturalism and political correctness..."

There is nothing mandatory here.

"Unfree print and broadcast media, including book publishing and entertainment, controlled by a handful of like-minded corporations."

That would be Jewish controlled corporations, right? And, I assume, their indoctrination tools known as "Cultural Marxism".

At least I know the type of person I am dealing with here...please, carry on with the standard, tired arguments.

"In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now."

First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being "the West" or "western". Second, you are misusing the term "genocide". Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term. Third, you do realize that your own elitist views regarding the "common people", who are also WHITE, will not sit well with them, so how do you expect them to cater to your every whim?

"A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females."

How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation? Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate--whom you characterize as being "dumb, low information, degenerates"--or ruling "elites"?,? What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

"while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal."

Gently, ha! More like bludgeoning. Moreover, what population size to YOU is "optimal"? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation?

As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than “a goddam piece of paper.”

"As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than “a goddam piece of paper.”"

There is no assumption. America has a constitution, and its detractors on both sides of the political aisle will make the same stale argument you make when legal decisions do not turn out in their favor.

Regardless, how do YOU propose to implement your courses of action where YOU live?

Historically, Asian and Islamic nations have been regarded as East, while Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Latin America and the United States are regarded as West.

You say:

Second, you are misusing the term “genocide”. Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term.

Try not to shout, or use all caps for emphasis, it adds nothing to your argument.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus:

The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.

It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.

More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

So, yes, mass replacement immigration combined with repressed reproduction and enforced multiculturalism and political correctness does "equate to the term" genocide.

“Who cares how Americans, white, black or khaki, characterize their civilization, if you can call it a civilization.”

Americans are decidedly caring about their civilization. You can label it differently, but it assuredly meets the criteria of civilization.

“I’d rather call it a byproduct of the commercial system.”

Well, Western Civilization also meets that metric.

“For those who are more or less educated, Wikipedia provides a definition of “the West” consistent with my usage and the usage of most modern historians and political commentators”

That’s not the issue here. The fact remains most Americans do not refer to their civilization as Western, but rather American.

“The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus”

You do realize that there a number of posters here who are not fond of Jews, correct? Your quotation only lends support to my contention. Lemkin admits that he is PERSONALLY adding criteria to an already well-established, clear-cut concept regarding mass killings.

Now, let’s get back to the heart of the matter by addressing my points, rather than claim you responded to my inquiries.

You–“A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.”

Me–How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation?

Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

What population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You do realize that there a number of posters here who are not fond of Jews, correct? Your quotation only lends support to my contention. Lemkin admits that he is PERSONALLY adding criteria to an already well-established, clear-cut concept regarding mass killings.

I did not refer to "mass killings." I spoke of "genocide" a term that was coined by Raphael Lemkin, and which I used as Lemkin defined it.

As for posters "not fond of Jews," what of it? What am I supposed to do about it? How can it possibly have any relevance to an argument about the destruction of the European nations?

As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than "a goddam piece of paper."

“As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than “a goddam piece of paper.””

There is no assumption. America has a constitution, and its detractors on both sides of the political aisle will make the same stale argument you make when legal decisions do not turn out in their favor.

Regardless, how do YOU propose to implement your courses of action where YOU live?

(2) A one-child or no-child policy enforced by all necessary constitutional means.

(3) A universal DNA fingerprint registry to ensure that concupiscent males are subject to the same provisions of the reproductive management laws as females. For example, such a database would make it possible to enforce fathers to make obligatory paternity payments to the mothers of their own progeny for whom they otherwise have no legal responsibility.

Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

First, you misquote me. I did not refer to the US electorate as "degenerates," although I did speak of the "more or less degenerate mass."

I think that is a fair and accurate characterization, though as a generalization it is certainly subject to many exceptions.

Degenerate means "having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline." By that measure, the mass of TV-watching, junk-food-guzzling, coke-snorting, hash-smoking, porn-addicted masses, would, I believe, be considered "more of less degenerate" by their forebears. The same is true of all Western nations.

Second, democracy in the West is a fraud, therefore the question of electoral support is irrelevant. The elite decide, the mass are then compelled to think in conformity, the means of compulsion including:

State-controlled K-to-early-middle-age education, with its mandatory components of multiculturalism and political correctness;

Unfree print and broadcast media, including book publishing and entertainment, controlled by a handful of like-minded corporations.

“First, you misquote me. I did not refer to the US electorate as “degenerates,” although I did speak of the “more or less degenerate mass.”

There was no misquoting on my part. If you characterize a group as being “degenerate”, in this case Americans, one is able to deduct that the individuals that constitute that group fit your description.

“I think that is a fair and accurate characterization, though as a generalization it is certainly subject to many exceptions.”

Exactly, a generalization that may not be entirely accurate.

“Degenerate means “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.” By that measure, the mass of TV-watching, junk-food-guzzling, coke-snorting, hash-smoking, porn-addicted masses”, would, I believe, be considered “more of less degenerate” by their forebears. The same is true of all Western nations.”

(Spock brow) You are lumping together individual behaviors and stating unequivocally that the majority of people engage in said behaviors. That is illogical.

“Second, democracy in the West is a fraud, therefore the question of electoral support is irrelevant.”

There is assuredly nothing fraudulent about representative democracy or the people, of their own volition, making political decisions reflective of their own ideologies.

“The elite decide, the mass are then compelled to think in conformity, the means of compulsion including””

In typical fashion, you give way too much credit to these “elites” and have too little faith in the “masses”.

“State-controlled K-to-early-middle-age education, with its mandatory components of multiculturalism and political correctness…”

There is nothing mandatory here.

“Unfree print and broadcast media, including book publishing and entertainment, controlled by a handful of like-minded corporations.”

That would be Jewish controlled corporations, right? And, I assume, their indoctrination tools known as “Cultural Marxism”.

At least I know the type of person I am dealing with here…please, carry on with the standard, tired arguments.

"Who cares how Americans, white, black or khaki, characterize their civilization, if you can call it a civilization."

Americans are decidedly caring about their civilization. You can label it differently, but it assuredly meets the criteria of civilization.

"I’d rather call it a byproduct of the commercial system."

Well, Western Civilization also meets that metric.

"For those who are more or less educated, Wikipedia provides a definition of “the West” consistent with my usage and the usage of most modern historians and political commentators"

That's not the issue here. The fact remains most Americans do not refer to their civilization as Western, but rather American.

"The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus"

You do realize that there a number of posters here who are not fond of Jews, correct? Your quotation only lends support to my contention. Lemkin admits that he is PERSONALLY adding criteria to an already well-established, clear-cut concept regarding mass killings.

Now, let's get back to the heart of the matter by addressing my points, rather than claim you responded to my inquiries.

You--“A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.”

Me--How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation?

Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

What population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You do realize that there a number of posters here who are not fond of Jews, correct? Your quotation only lends support to my contention. Lemkin admits that he is PERSONALLY adding criteria to an already well-established, clear-cut concept regarding mass killings.

I did not refer to “mass killings.” I spoke of “genocide” a term that was coined by Raphael Lemkin, and which I used as Lemkin defined it.

As for posters “not fond of Jews,” what of it? What am I supposed to do about it? How can it possibly have any relevance to an argument about the destruction of the European nations?

"How can it possibly have any relevance to an argument about the destruction of the European nations?"

Don't you pay attention here? Jews are responsible for EVERYTHING horrific in humanity.

"I did not refer to “mass killings.”

While Lemkin coined the term, he admitted it was in specific response to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. This concept has subsequently been applied to mass killings, a narrow interpretation by which the intent to destroy through biological-physical destruction is required for an act to qualify as genocide. Massive immigration replacement does NOT meet that stipulation, since the purpose of immigration laws are multi-faceted.

"As I think I already said, I have provided an outline here."

Yes, I am familiar with your proposals.

1) "Tax incentives for reproduction"--How do you rectify this solution with the fact that it is socialistic in nature, which is contrary to adherents of free markets?

2) "A one-child or no-child policy enforced by all necessary constitutional means"--You just stated that democracy is a fraud, yet insist on using its mechanisms to implement your policies. Hypocrite? Yes.

Riddle me this, How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation for YOUR country of origin? Stated another way, how would these courses of action be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the nation you reside in?

Is there currently the mainstream support for these proposals, especially the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

What population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than “a goddam piece of paper.”"

There is no assumption. America has a constitution, and its detractors on both sides of the political aisle will make the same stale argument you make when legal decisions do not turn out in their favor.

Regardless, how do YOU propose to implement your courses of action where YOU live?

how do YOU propose to implement your courses of action where YOU live?

(2) A one-child or no-child policy enforced by all necessary constitutional means.

(3) A universal DNA fingerprint registry to ensure that concupiscent males are subject to the same provisions of the reproductive management laws as females. For example, such a database would make it possible to enforce fathers to make obligatory paternity payments to the mothers of their own progeny for whom they otherwise have no legal responsibility.

Plenty of precedent for government regimentation of life-choices, particularly after the Tabula Rasa theory of human development crashes down in the next few years.

“Plenty of precedent for government regimentation of life-choices”

You mean government regulation of citizen conduct as prescribed by legislators via the will of the people.

Regardless, you still haven’t responded with specifics to my question. Who is promoting this policy? Where is the widespread support for this eugenics policy?

“particularly after the Tabula Rasa theory of human development crashes down in the next few years.”

Yes, there have been advancements in the study of race and genetics the past decade, but even these experts caution against finding the Holy Grail that will destroy the nurturist positions. In other words, you are only speculating.

You do realize that there a number of posters here who are not fond of Jews, correct? Your quotation only lends support to my contention. Lemkin admits that he is PERSONALLY adding criteria to an already well-established, clear-cut concept regarding mass killings.

I did not refer to "mass killings." I spoke of "genocide" a term that was coined by Raphael Lemkin, and which I used as Lemkin defined it.

As for posters "not fond of Jews," what of it? What am I supposed to do about it? How can it possibly have any relevance to an argument about the destruction of the European nations?

A smart crow (genus Corvinus), by the way, is said to have the reasoning power of a seven-year-old, which is good — for a bird.

“How can it possibly have any relevance to an argument about the destruction of the European nations?”

Don’t you pay attention here? Jews are responsible for EVERYTHING horrific in humanity.

“I did not refer to “mass killings.”

While Lemkin coined the term, he admitted it was in specific response to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. This concept has subsequently been applied to mass killings, a narrow interpretation by which the intent to destroy through biological-physical destruction is required for an act to qualify as genocide. Massive immigration replacement does NOT meet that stipulation, since the purpose of immigration laws are multi-faceted.

“As I think I already said, I have provided an outline here.”

Yes, I am familiar with your proposals.

1) “Tax incentives for reproduction”–How do you rectify this solution with the fact that it is socialistic in nature, which is contrary to adherents of free markets?

2) “A one-child or no-child policy enforced by all necessary constitutional means”–You just stated that democracy is a fraud, yet insist on using its mechanisms to implement your policies. Hypocrite? Yes.

Riddle me this, How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation for YOUR country of origin? Stated another way, how would these courses of action be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the nation you reside in?

Is there currently the mainstream support for these proposals, especially the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

What population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Good article, Fred. I've been asking a lot of these same questions myself. The hype on robots is overblown, the problem is knowing how much overblown. We also have an over emphasis on college that ignores the good living people can have in the Trades. Robots will not be replacing plumbers and electricians anytime soon. Nor riggers, pipe-fitters and welders. Even so, sending our manufacturing across our borders was always a dumbass idea. We created the semiconductor industry here in the US. Now we don't even make the machines required to manufacture semiconductors. That is just stupid beyond belief. The globalists have sold us out. They are traitors and they should be held accountable.

We've allowed the unions and the federal mafia to destroy our industries and take over what remains so it can control us. We used to have a commercial shipping industry until the maritime unions destroyed ti with government help. Now we only build warships. We only have one company building commercial airplanes. We used to have 3. The others have consolidated and now build only for the military.

I can tell you what the future holds if we continue as we are; expansive poverty, the government dole, and endless wars created by the government to kill off large portions of the population so the elites don't have to worry about a revolution. Maybe the grubers rise up and kill them before that comes about. It would take their worries about the future away and it is the right thing to do which is probably why it will never happen in this banana republic.

Interesting that you praise plumbers, electricians and welder a while denigrating and blaming unions for “driving everything to China”

We’re it not for unions, every person attempting to do plumbing, electrician or welding work would be a Guatamelan Indian picked up at Home Depot

Industry got along fine in the early and mid 20th century with strong private sector unions

It’s long been my opinion that it was not the unions of competent White Anerican workers that drive industry away

I believe it was the double whammy of affirmative action blacks and the affirmative action lawsuits and extortion along with the environmental regulations and lawsuits

All those things, environmental lawsuits affirmative action and Nixon’s opening to China all occurred in less than 10 years.

My Dad worked for Allis Chalmes I think it’s gone now. Allis Chalmers manufactured not cara and trucks by bulldozers tractors and other motorized equipment

Around 1968 he went to a conference in Detroit The conference was all about how the manufacturing industry would deal with affirmative action

This is what they were told”from now on, every hiring, firing, promotion and assignment decision is subject to litigation”

He spoke with various union officials They spoke about the useless blacks they had been forced to hire because of affirmative action ” do nothing but bother the women all day.

Actually, I blamed the federal mafia AND the unions for driving manufacturing offshore and destroying entire industries. I also gave an example. Here’s another one: the union that shut down the Seattle harbor a couple of years ago. The crane operators are making $250K/year and they went on strike? For what? The maritime unions are as bad as the UAW and the Teamsters – all have corrupt administration and the members don’t do anything about it.

And yes, government regulation is as bad or worse. Worse for coal. I agree with you about affirmative action, that is just welfare for the worthless.

The three states with the biggest Amish numbers (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana) have a combined average population density of 243.4/sq.mi.Land for all?If England's current density of 1052.7/sq.mi., some 53 million, was reduced to that of the "Amish States" it would have 12,257,137 people, pretty much in line with its historical carrying capacity (complete with periodic famines).What are you going to do with 40-odd million excess peasant farmers?Short of an apocalypse, you just can't get there from here.

If England’s current density of 1052.7/sq.mi., some 53 million, was reduced to that of the “Amish States” it would have 12,257,137 people, pretty much in line with its historical carrying capacity (complete with periodic famines).

With modern agricultural techniques and crop varieties, England’s carrying capacity is well in excess of the current population.

To write that unions destroyed our industries is nonsense. Unions were the leading force in bringing about the 40 hour work week, paid holidays, health benefits, safety regulations and an end to child labor besides a living wage that allowed millions to buy homes, feed their families and send their kids to school. Show me the union man who has a golden parachute, a couple of mansions, a few luxury cars, a yacht and a mistress set up in an apt in Manhattan. The image of the lazy union man is an image created by millionaires who want to pay their workers slave wages. Union jobs mean a strong middle class which means a healthy country. Non-union means slave wages and a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

I feel reasonably certain some form of the Guaranteed Income will be enacted. There will be jostling about as the perpetually-privileged class finds itself pressured by new entrants from the former "We Work for a Living" class. That means negroes and mexicans, already chronically pissed-off at the injustice of their station, will be agitating about white people getting handouts as big as theirs, and healthcare and free school lunches.

What no one points out any more -- for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide -- is that the problem is overpopulation. Has been for 50 years, and worsens daily. Eventually, everybody cannot be fed and housed adequately because there simply will not be adequate resources. And then, the house of cards collapses. Famine, pestilence, war, death ... the usual.

All activities of "civilization" seem to be little more than feeble efforts to postpone the inevitable. And to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.

”What no one points out any more — for reasons of the great benefit provided both sides of the 99%/1% divide — is that the problem is overpopulation.”

You hit the nail on the head. i was thinking the exact same thing while reading the article. People are outbreeding faster than tech can create jobs. Today’s shortage of jobs is not because of technology…it is despite technology. (Its technology that has created most of the jobs of today, to begin with. so i dont think technology is causing job shortage.) The shortage is due to failure of technology to create as many jobs as needed due to overpopulation.

Edit: I am talking from a perspective from what is happening in the world as a whole.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter